UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-Q

QUARTERLY REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES 

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the quarterly period ended September 30, 2016

OR

TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES 

EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to 

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, NW

Washington, DC

20016

(Zip Code)

(Address of principal executive offices)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

(800) 2FANNIE (800-232-6643)

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 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 No 

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 

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 Exchange Act). Yes No 

As of September 30, 2016, there were 1,158,082,750 shares of common stock of the registrant outstanding.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I—Financial Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 1. Financial Statements

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 1—Summary of Significant Accounting Policies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 2—Consolidations and Transfers of Financial Assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 3—Mortgage Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 4—Allowance for Loan Losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 5—Investments in Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 6—Financial Guarantees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 7—Acquired Property, Net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 8—Short-Term Borrowings and Long-Term Debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 9—Derivative Instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 10—Earnings (Loss) Per Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 11—Segment Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 12—Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 13—Concentrations of Credit Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 14—Netting Arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 15—Fair Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 16—Commitments and Contingencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Legislative and Regulatory Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Consolidated Results of Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Business Segment Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Consolidated Balance Sheet Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Liquidity and Capital Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Risk Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Impact of Future Adoption of New Accounting Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Forward-Looking Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 4. Controls and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PART II—Other Information. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 1. Legal Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 1A. Risk Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 5. Other Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 6. Exhibits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

75

76

77

78

81

83

91

94

98

99

99

100

103

103

106

107

110

112

137

1

1

2

14

15

15

27

36

38

43

43

70

70

139

139

141

141

142

143

145

145

145

145
ii

MD&A TABLE REFERENCE

Table Description Page

1 Credit Statistics, Single-Family Guaranty Book of Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2 Single-Family Acquisitions Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

3 Summary of Condensed Consolidated Results of Operations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4 Analysis of Net Interest Income and Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

5 Rate/Volume Analysis of Changes in Net Interest Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

6 Fair Value Losses, Net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

7 Total Loss Reserves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

8 Changes in Combined Loss Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

9 Troubled Debt Restructurings and Nonaccrual Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

10 Credit Loss Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

11 Credit Loss Concentration Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

12 Single-Family Business Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

13 Multifamily Business Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

14 Capital Markets Group Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

15 Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

16 Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

17 Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

18 Summary of Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

19 Summary of Mortgage-Related Securities at Fair Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

20 Activity in Debt of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

21 Outstanding Short-Term Borrowings and Long-Term Debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

22 Cash and Other Investments Portfolio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

23 Composition of Mortgage Credit Book of Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

24 Selected Credit Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Guaranty Book of Business, by Acquisition

Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

25 Representation and Warranty Status of Single-Family Conventional Loans Acquired in 2013-2016 . . . . . . . 48

26 Credit Risk Transferred Pursuant to CAS and CIRT Transactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

27 Risk Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Business Volume and Guaranty Book of Business. . . . 52

28 Delinquency Status and Activity of Single-Family Conventional Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

29 Single-Family Conventional Seriously Delinquent Loan Concentration Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

30 Statistics on Single-Family Loan Workouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

31 Single-Family Foreclosed Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

32 Multifamily Guaranty Book of Business Key Risk Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

33 Mortgage Insurance Coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

34 Interest Rate Sensitivity of Net Portfolio to Changes in Interest Rate Level and Slope of Yield Curve . . . . . 69

35 Derivative Impact on Interest Rate Risk (50 Basis Points). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
1

PART I—FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

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 fiduciary 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 our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (“2015 Form 10-K”) 

in “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements.”

You should read this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”) in 

conjunction with our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and related notes in this report and the more 

detailed information in our 2015 Form 10-K.

This report contains forward-looking statements that are based on management’s current expectations and are subject to 

significant uncertainties and changes in circumstances. Please review “Forward-Looking Statements” for more information 

on the forward-looking statements in this report. Our actual results may differ materially from those reflected in our forwardlooking statements due to a variety of factors including, but not limited to, those discussed in “Risk Factors” and elsewhere 

in this report and in our 2015 Form 10-K. 

You can find a “Glossary of Terms Used in This Report” in the “MD&A” of our 2015 Form 10-K. 

INTRODUCTION

Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise (“GSE”) that was chartered by Congress in 1938. We serve an essential 

role in the functioning of the U.S. housing market and are investing in improvements to the U.S. housing finance system. Our 

public mission is to support liquidity and stability in the secondary mortgage market, where existing mortgage-related assets 

are purchased and sold, and to increase the supply of affordable housing. Our charter does not permit us to originate loans or 

lend money directly to consumers in the primary mortgage market. 

Fannie Mae provides reliable, large-scale access to affordable mortgage credit and indirectly enables families to buy, 

refinance or rent homes. We securitize mortgage loans originated by lenders into Fannie Mae mortgage-backed securities that 

we guarantee, which we refer to as Fannie Mae MBS. One of our key functions is to evaluate, price and manage the credit 

risk on the loans and securities that we guarantee. We also purchase mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities, 

primarily for securitization and sale at a later date. 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, which attracts global capital to the United States housing market. 

We remain in conservatorship and our conservatorship has no specified termination date. We do not know when or how the 

conservatorship will terminate, what further changes to our business will be made during or following conservatorship, 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 or whether we will continue to exist following conservatorship. In addition, as a result of 

our agreements with Treasury and dividend directives from our conservator, we are not permitted to retain our net worth 

(other than a limited amount that will decrease to zero by 2018), rebuild our capital position or pay dividends or other 

distributions to stockholders other than Treasury. Our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury also includes 

covenants that significantly restrict our business activities. Congress and the Obama Administration continue to consider 

options for reform of the housing finance system, including the GSEs. We cannot predict the prospects for the enactment, 

timing or final content of housing finance reform legislation or actions the Administration or FHFA may take with respect to 

housing finance reform. The conservatorship, the uncertainty of our future, limitations on executive and employee 

compensation, and negative publicity concerning the GSEs have had and are likely to continue to have an adverse effect on 

our ability to retain and recruit well-qualified executives and other employees. We provide additional information on the 

conservatorship, the provisions of our agreements with Treasury, and their impact on our business in our 2015 Form 10-K in 

“Business—Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements” and “Risk Factors.” We discuss the uncertainty of our future in 
2

“Executive Summary—Outlook” and “Risk Factors” in this report. We discuss proposals for housing finance reform that 

could materially affect our business in our 2015 Form 10-K in “Business—Housing Finance Reform.” 

Although Treasury owns our senior preferred stock and a warrant to purchase 79.9% of our common stock, and has made a 

commitment under a senior preferred stock purchase agreement to provide us with funds to maintain a positive net worth 

under specified conditions, the U.S. government does not guarantee our securities or other obligations.

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.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview

We reported net income of $3.2 billion for the third quarter of 2016, compared with net income of $2.0 billion for the third

quarter of 2015. See “Summary of Our Financial Performance” below for an overview of our financial performance for the 

third quarter and first nine months of 2016, compared with the third quarter and first nine months of 2015. We expect to 

remain profitable on an annual basis for the foreseeable future; however, certain factors, such as changes in interest rates or 

home prices, could result in significant volatility in our financial results from quarter to quarter or year to year. For more 

information regarding our expectations for our future financial performance, see “Outlook” below.

With our expected December 2016 dividend payment to Treasury, we will have paid a total of $154.4 billion in dividends to 

Treasury on our senior preferred stock. The aggregate amount of draws we have received from Treasury to date under the 

senior preferred stock purchase agreement is $116.1 billion. Under the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase 

agreement, dividend payments do not offset prior Treasury draws. For more information regarding our dividend payments to 

Treasury, see “Treasury Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement” below.

Our Strategy and Business Objectives

Our vision is to be America’s most valued housing partner and to provide liquidity, access to credit and affordability in all 

U.S. housing markets at all times, while effectively managing and reducing risk to our business, taxpayers and the housing 

finance system. In support of this vision, we are focused on: 

• advancing a sustainable and reliable business model that reduces risk to the housing finance system and taxpayers;

• providing reliable, large-scale access to affordable mortgage credit for qualified borrowers and helping struggling 

homeowners; and

• serving customer needs and improving our business efficiency.

Advancing a sustainable and reliable business model that reduces risk to the housing finance system and taxpayers

We have significantly changed our business model since we entered conservatorship in 2008 and our business continues to 

evolve. We have strengthened our underwriting and eligibility standards, we are moving from a portfolio-focused business to 

a guaranty-focused business and we are transferring an increasing portion of the credit risk on our guaranty book of business. 

These changes are transforming our business model and reducing certain risks of our business as compared with our business 

prior to entering conservatorship. 

Stronger underwriting and eligibility standards. Beginning in 2008, we made changes to strengthen our underwriting and 

eligibility standards that have improved the credit quality of our single-family guaranty book of business and contributed to 

improvement in our credit performance. See “Single-Family Guaranty Book of Business” below for information on the credit 

performance of the mortgage loans in our single-family guaranty book of business and on our recent single-family 

acquisitions.

Moving from a portfolio-focused business to a guaranty-focused business. In recent years, an increasing portion of our net 

interest income has been derived from the guaranty fees we receive for managing the credit risk on loans underlying our 

Fannie Mae MBS, rather than from interest income on our retained mortgage portfolio assets. This shift has been driven by 

both the impact of guaranty fee increases implemented in 2012 and the reduction of our retained mortgage portfolio in 

accordance with the requirements of our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury and direction from FHFA. 

Our retained mortgage portfolio refers to the mortgage-related assets we own (which excludes the portion of assets held by 

consolidated MBS trusts that back mortgage-related securities owned by third parties). In the first nine months of 2016, more 
3

than two-thirds of our net interest income was derived from our guaranty business. As described in more detail in “Outlook—

Revenues” below, we expect that guaranty fees will continue to account for an increasing portion of our net interest income. 

Transferring a portion of the mortgage credit risk on our single-family book of business. In late 2013, we began entering into 

credit risk transfer transactions with the goal of transferring, to the extent economically sensible, a portion of the mortgage 

credit risk on some of the recently-acquired loans in our single-family book of business in order to reduce the economic risk 

to us and to taxpayers of future borrower defaults. As of September 30, 2016, $594 billion in outstanding unpaid principal 

balance of our single-family loans, or approximately 21% of the loans in our single-family conventional guaranty book of 

business measured by unpaid principal balance, were included in a reference pool for a Connecticut Avenue SecuritiesTM

(“CAS”) or a Credit Insurance Risk TransferTM (“CIRT

TM”) transaction. We intend to continue to engage in credit risk 

transfer transactions on an ongoing basis, subject to market conditions. Over time, we expect that a larger portion of our 

single-family conventional guaranty book of business will be covered by credit risk transfer transactions. For further 

discussion of our credit risk transfer transactions, see “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family 

Mortgage Credit Risk Management—Transfer of Mortgage Credit Risk—Credit Risk-Sharing Transactions.”

Our business also continues to evolve as a result of our many other efforts to build a safer and sustainable housing finance 

system and to pursue the strategic goals identified by our conservator, and we continue to invest significant resources towards 

these goals. See “Business—Executive Summary—Helping to Build a Sustainable Housing Finance System” in our 2015

Form 10-K for a discussion of these efforts and FHFA’s strategic goals for our conservatorship, including a description of 

some of the actions we are taking pursuant to the mandates of FHFA’s conservatorship scorecards in order to build the 

policies and infrastructure for a sustainable housing finance system. For more information on FHFA’s 2016 conservatorship 

scorecard objectives, see our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on 

December 17, 2015.

Providing reliable, large-scale access to affordable mortgage credit for qualified borrowers and helping struggling 

homeowners 

We continued to provide reliable, large-scale access to affordable mortgage credit to the U.S. housing market in the third

quarter of 2016 and remained a leading source of liquidity in the single-family and multifamily markets. We also continued to 

help struggling homeowners. In the third quarter of 2016, we provided approximately 26,500 loan workouts to help 

homeowners stay in their homes or otherwise avoid foreclosure. We discuss our activities to support the housing and 

mortgage markets in “Contributions to the Housing and Mortgage Markets” below.

Serving customer needs and improving our business efficiency

We are continuing our initiatives to better serve our customers’ needs and improve our business efficiency in 2016. These 

initiatives include continuing to revise and clarify lenders’ representation and warranty obligations, implementing innovative 

new and enhanced tools that deliver greater value and certainty to lenders, simplifying our business processes, and updating 

our infrastructure. We discuss these initiatives in “Serving Customer Needs and Improving Our Business Efficiency” below 

and in our 2015 Form 10-K in “Business—Executive Summary.”

Summary of Our Financial Performance 

Comprehensive Income

Quarterly Results

We recognized comprehensive income of $3.0 billion in the third quarter of 2016, consisting of net income of $3.2 billion and 

other comprehensive loss of $207 million. In comparison, we recognized comprehensive income of $2.2 billion in the third

quarter of 2015, consisting of net income of $2.0 billion and other comprehensive income of $253 million. The increase in 

our net income in the third quarter of 2016 compared with the third quarter of 2015 was primarily driven by a decrease in fair 

value losses, partially offset by a decrease in credit-related income and lower net revenues.

We recognized fair value losses of $491 million in the third quarter of 2016 compared with fair value losses of $2.6 billion in 

the third quarter of 2015. Fair value losses in the third quarter of 2016 were primarily due to losses on CAS debt carried at 

fair value primarily due to tightening spreads between CAS debt yields and LIBOR during the period. Fair value losses in the 

third quarter of 2015 were primarily driven by losses on our risk management derivatives resulting from declines in longerterm swap rates during the period.

We recognized credit-related income of $563 million in the third quarter of 2016 compared with credit-related income of $1.1 

billion in the third quarter of 2015. Credit-related income in the third quarter of 2016 was driven by a $673 million benefit for 

credit losses during the quarter, which was primarily attributable to an increase in home prices, including distressed property 
4

valuations. Higher home prices decrease the likelihood that loans will default and reduce the amount of credit loss on loans 

that do default, which impacts our estimate of losses and ultimately reduces our total loss reserves and provision for credit 

losses. Credit-related income in the third quarter of 2015 was driven by a benefit for credit losses that was primarily 

attributable to an increase in home prices as well as a decrease in interest rates during the period. As interest rates decline, we 

expect an increase in future prepayments on single-family individually impaired loans, including modified loans. Higher 

expected prepayments shorten the expected lives of modified loans, which decreases the impairment relating to concessions 

provided on these loans and results in a decrease in our provision for credit losses.

Net revenues, which consist of net interest income and fee and other income, were $5.6 billion in the third quarter of 2016 

and $5.8 billion in the third quarter of 2015. We recognized net interest income of $5.4 billion in the third quarter of 2016 and 

$5.6 billion in the third quarter of 2015. The decline in net interest income was primarily due to a decline in the average 

balance of our retained mortgage portfolio, partially offset by an increase in guaranty fee revenue.

Year-to-Date Results

We recognized comprehensive income of $6.8 billion in the first nine months of 2016, consisting of net income of $7.3 

billion and other comprehensive loss of $484 million. In comparison, we recognized comprehensive income of $8.4 billion in 

the first nine months of 2015, consisting of net income of $8.5 billion and other comprehensive loss of $120 million. The 

decrease in our net income was primarily driven by an increase in fair value losses and a decrease in net revenues, partially 

offset by a shift to credit-related income from credit-related expense.

Fair value losses of $5.0 billion in the first nine months of 2016 and $1.9 billion in the first nine months of 2015 were 

primarily driven by losses on our risk management derivatives resulting from declines in longer-term swap rates during the 

periods.

Net revenues were $16.0 billion in the first nine months of 2016 and $17.5 billion in the first nine months of 2015. We 

recognized net interest income of $15.5 billion in the first nine months of 2016 and $16.3 billion in the first nine months of 

2015. The decline in net interest income was primarily a result of the same factors that affected our results for the third 

quarter of 2016, as described above.

We recognized credit-related income of $3.0 billion in the first nine months of 2016. In comparison, we recognized creditrelated expense of $102 million in the first nine months of 2015. Credit-related income in the first nine months of 2016 was 

primarily attributable to a $3.5 billion benefit for credit losses during the period, which was primarily driven by an increase in 

home prices, including distressed property valuations, and a decrease in interest rates. Credit-related expense in the first nine 

months of 2015 was comprised of foreclosed property expense, partially offset by a benefit for credit losses. Foreclosed 

property expense in the first nine months of 2015 was primarily driven by property preservation costs, which include 

property tax and insurance expenses relating to our single-family foreclosed properties. The benefit for credit losses in the 

first nine months of 2015 was primarily driven by higher home prices. This was partially offset by the impact from the 

redesignation of certain nonperforming single-family loans from held for investment (“HFI”) to held for sale (“HFS”). These 

loans were adjusted to the lower of cost or fair value, which reduced our benefit for credit losses. Additionally, interest rates 

increased during the first nine months of 2015, which also partially offset our benefit for credit losses. 

We expect volatility from period to period in our financial results from a number of factors, particularly changes in market 

conditions that result in fluctuations in the estimated fair value of the financial instruments that we mark to market through 

our earnings. These instruments include derivatives and certain securities. The estimated fair value of our derivatives and 

securities may fluctuate substantially from period to period because of changes in interest rates, the yield curve, mortgage and 

credit spreads, and implied volatility, as well as activity related to these financial instruments. We use derivatives to manage 

the interest rate risk exposure of our net portfolio, which consists of our retained mortgage portfolio, cash and other 

investments portfolio, and outstanding debt of Fannie Mae. Some of these financial instruments in our net portfolio are not 

recorded at fair value in our condensed consolidated financial statements, and as a result we may experience accounting gains 

or losses due to changes in interest rates or other market conditions that may not be indicative of the economic interest rate 

risk exposure of our net portfolio. See “Risk Management—Market Risk Management, Including Interest Rate Risk 

Management” for more information. In addition, our credit-related income or expense can vary substantially from period to 

period based on factors such as changes in actual and expected home prices, borrower payment behavior, the types and 

volume of our loss mitigation activities, the volumes of foreclosures completed, redesignations of loans from HFI to HFS, 

and fluctuations in interest rates.

See “Consolidated Results of Operations” for more information on our results.
5

Net Worth

Our net worth increased to $4.2 billion as of September 30, 2016 from $4.1 billion as of December 31, 2015, primarily due to 

our comprehensive income of $6.8 billion, offset by our payments to Treasury of $6.7 billion in senior preferred stock 

dividends during the first nine months of 2016. Our expected dividend payment of $3.0 billion for the fourth quarter of 2016

is calculated based on our net worth of $4.2 billion as of September 30, 2016 less the applicable capital reserve amount of 

$1.2 billion.

Single-Family Guaranty Book of Business

Credit Performance

We continued to acquire loans with strong credit profiles and to execute on our strategies for reducing credit losses in the 

third quarter of 2016, such as helping eligible Fannie Mae borrowers with high loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratio loans refinance 

into more sustainable loans through the Administration’s Home Affordable Refinance Program® (“HARP®”), offering 

borrowers loan modifications that can significantly reduce their monthly payments, pursuing foreclosure alternatives and 

managing our real estate owned (“REO”) inventory to appropriately manage costs and maximize sales proceeds. As we work 

to reduce credit losses, we also seek to assist struggling homeowners, help stabilize communities and support the housing 

market.

Table 1 presents information about the credit performance of mortgage loans in our single-family guaranty book of business 

and our workouts. The term “workouts” refers to both home retention solutions (loan modifications and other solutions that 

enable a borrower to stay in his or her home) and foreclosure alternatives (short sales and deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure). The 

workout information in Table 1 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 1: Credit Statistics, Single-Family Guaranty Book of Business(1)

2016 2015

Q3

YTD Q3 Q2 Q1

Full

Year Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1

(Dollars in millions)

As of the end of each period:

Serious delinquency rate(2)

. . . . . . . 1.24 % 1.24 % 1.32 % 1.44 % 1.55 % 1.55 % 1.59 % 1.66 % 1.78 %

Seriously delinquent loan count . . . 211,485 211,485 225,590 247,281 267,174 267,174 275,548 287,372 308,546

Foreclosed property inventory:

Number of properties(3)

. . . . . . . 41,973 41,973 45,981 52,289 57,253 57,253 60,958 68,717 79,319

Carrying value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,833 $ 4,833 $ 5,301 $ 5,963 $ 6,608 $ 6,608 $ 7,245 $ 7,997 $ 8,915

Combined loss reserves . . . . . . . . . $ 22,796 $ 22,796 $ 23,856 $ 26,092 $ 28,325 $ 28,325 $ 29,404 $ 31,510 $ 32,157

During the period:

Credit-related income (expense)(4)

. $ 2,894 $ 531 $ 1,535 $ 828 $ (1,035) $ (819) $ 1,029 $ (1,238) $ (7)

Credit losses(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,003 $ 622 $ 812 $ 1,569 $ 10,731 $ 2,081 $ 1,168 $ 2,109 $ 5,373

REO net sales price to unpaid 

principal balance(6)

. . . . . . . . . . . 74 % 74 % 75 % 73 % 72 % 73 % 72 % 72 % 70 %

Short sales net sales price to 

unpaid principal balance(7)

. . . . . 74 % 75 % 73 % 73 % 73 % 74 % 74 % 74 % 73 %

Loan workout activity (number of 

loans):

Home retention loan workouts(8)

. . . 67,470 22,468 22,807 22,195 100,208 20,300 23,571 27,769 28,568

Short sales and deeds-in-lieu of

foreclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,208 4,004 4,464 4,740 22,077 4,761 5,531 6,128 5,657

Total loan workouts . . . . . . . . . . 80,678 26,472 27,271 26,935 122,285 25,061 29,102 33,897 34,225

Loan workouts as a percentage of 

delinquent loans in our guaranty 

book of business(9)

. . . . . . . . . . . 19.68 % 19.85 % 20.59 % 19.24 % 19.95 % 16.66 % 19.28 % 22.69 % 21.71 %
6

__________

(1) Our single-family guaranty book of business consists of (a) single-family mortgage loans of Fannie Mae, (b) single-family mortgage 

loans underlying Fannie Mae MBS, and (c) other credit enhancements that we provide on single-family mortgage assets, such as longterm standby commitments. It excludes non-Fannie Mae mortgage-related securities held in our retained mortgage portfolio for which 

we do not provide a guaranty.

(2) Calculated based on the number of single-family conventional loans that are 90 days or more past due or in the foreclosure process, 

divided by the number of loans in our single-family conventional guaranty book of business. 

(3) Includes acquisitions through deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure. Also includes held for use properties, which are reported in our condensed 

consolidated balance sheets as a component of “Other assets.” 

(4) Consists of (a) the benefit for credit losses and (b) foreclosed property expense.

(5) 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. 

(6) Calculated as the amount of sale proceeds received on disposition of REO properties during the respective period, excluding those 

subject to repurchase requests made to our sellers or servicers, divided by the aggregate unpaid principal balance of the related loans at 

the time of foreclosure. Net sales price represents the contract sales price less selling costs for the property and other charges paid by 

the seller at closing.

(7) Calculated as the amount of sale proceeds received on properties sold in short sale transactions during the respective periods divided by 

the aggregate unpaid principal balance of the related loans. Net sales price represents the contract sales price less the selling costs for 

the property and other charges paid by the seller at the closing, including borrower relocation incentive payments and subordinate lien

(s) negotiated payoffs.

(8) Consists of (a) modifications, which do not include trial modifications, loans to certain borrowers who have received bankruptcy relief 

that are classified as troubled debt restructurings (“TDRs”), or repayment plans or forbearances that have been initiated but not 

completed and (b) repayment plans and forbearances completed. See “Table 30: Statistics on Single-Family Loan Workouts” in “Risk 

Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management—Problem Loan Management—Loan 

Workout Metrics” for additional information on our various types of loan workouts.

(9) Calculated based on annualized problem loan workouts during the period as a percentage of the average balance of delinquent loans in 

our single-family guaranty book of business. 

Beginning in 2008, we took actions to significantly strengthen our underwriting and eligibility standards to promote 

sustainable homeownership and stability in the housing market. These actions have improved the credit quality of our book of 

business and contributed to improvement in our credit performance. For information on the credit risk profile of our singlefamily guaranty book of business, see “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk 

Management,” including “Table 27: Risk Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Business Volume and Guaranty 

Book of Business.” 

Our single-family serious delinquency rate has decreased each quarter since the first quarter of 2010, and was 1.24% as of 

September 30, 2016, compared with 1.55% as of December 31, 2015. We continue to experience disproportionately higher 

serious delinquency rates and credit losses from single-family loans originated in 2005 through 2008 than from loans 

originated in other years. Single-family loans originated in 2005 through 2008 constituted 9% of our single-family book of 

business as of September 30, 2016, but constituted 53% of our seriously delinquent single-family loans as of September 30, 

2016 and drove 60% of our single-family credit losses in the third quarter of 2016. For information on the credit performance 

of our single-family book of business based on loan vintage, see “Table 11: Credit Loss Concentration Analysis” in 

“Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related Income (Expense)—Credit Loss Performance Metrics” and “Table 29: 

Single-Family Conventional Seriously Delinquent Loan Concentration Analysis” in “Risk Management—Credit Risk 

Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management.” For information on certain credit characteristics of our 

single-family book of business based on the period in which we acquired the loans, see “Table 24: Selected Credit 

Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Guaranty Book of Business, by Acquisition Period” in “Risk Management—

Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management.”

We provide additional information on our credit-related income or expense and our credit losses in “Consolidated Results of 

Operations—Credit-Related Income (Expense).” We provide more information on the credit performance of mortgage loans 

in our single-family book of business and our efforts to reduce our credit losses in “Risk Management—Credit Risk 

Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management.” See also “Risk Factors” in our 2015 Form 10-K, where 

we describe factors that may increase our credit-related expense and credit losses, as well as factors that may adversely affect 

the success of our efforts to reduce our credit losses.
7

Recently Acquired Single-Family Loans

Table 2 below displays information regarding our average charged guaranty fee on and select risk characteristics of the 

single-family loans we acquired in each of the last seven quarters, including HARP acquisitions. Table 2 also displays the 

volume of our single-family Fannie Mae MBS issuances for these periods, which is indicative of the volume of single-family 

loans we acquired in these periods.

Table 2: Single-Family Acquisitions Statistics

2016 2015

Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family average 

charged guaranty fee on 

new acquisitions, net of 

TCCA fee (in basis 

points)(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.2 47.2 49.2 50.5 50.6 49.9 51.2

Single-family Fannie Mae

MBS issuances. . . . . . . . . $166,023 $132,086 $101,797 $104,359 $126,144 $130,974 $110,994

Select risk characteristics of 

single-family 

conventional 

acquisitions:(2)

Weighted average FICO®

credit score at 

origination . . . . . . . . . . . 752 749 746 746 747 750 748

FICO credit score at

origination less than

660. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 % 4 % 6 % 6 % 6 % 5 % 5 %

Weighted average original 

LTV ratio(3)

. . . . . . . . . . 74 % 75 % 75 % 75 % 76 % 74 % 74 %

Original LTV ratio over 

80%(3)(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 % 28 % 27 % 30 % 30 % 27 % 26 %

Original LTV ratio over 

95%(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 3 % 2 %

Loan purpose:

Purchase . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 % 47 % 46 % 50 % 54 % 40 % 37 %

Refinance . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 % 53 % 54 % 50 % 46 % 60 % 63 %

__________

(1) Excludes the impact of a 10 basis point guaranty fee increase implemented in 2012 pursuant to the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut 

Continuation Act of 2011 (the “TCCA”). This TCCA-related fee is unrelated to our pricing strategy, as the incremental revenue from 

this fee is remitted to Treasury and not retained by us. Average charged guaranty fee is calculated based on the average contractual fee 

rate, net of TCCA fee, for our single-family guaranty arrangements entered into during the period plus the recognition of any upfront 

cash payments ratably over an estimated average life, expressed in basis points.

(2) Calculated based on unpaid principal balance of single-family loans for each category at time of acquisition. 

(3) The original LTV ratio generally is based on the original unpaid principal balance of the loan divided by the appraised property value 

reported to us at the time of acquisition of the loan. Excludes loans for which this information is not readily available.

(4) We purchase loans with original LTV ratios above 80% as part of our mission to serve the primary mortgage market and provide 

liquidity to the housing finance system. Except as permitted under HARP, our charter generally requires primary mortgage insurance or 

other credit enhancement for loans that we acquire that have an LTV ratio over 80%.

The average charged guaranty fee on our newly-acquired single family loans declined in the first nine months of 2016 

compared with the first nine months of 2015, due to both: (1) changes in the contractual guaranty fee rates we charged for 

some loan types in response to market conditions; and (2) a decrease in the loan level price adjustments we charged on our 

acquisitions driven by improved credit risk metrics on these acquisitions as compared with our acquisitions in the first nine 
8

months of 2015. Loan level price adjustments are one-time cash fees that we charge at the time we acquire a loan based on 

the loan’s features.

In July 2016, FHFA advised us that it had established minimum base guaranty fees that generally apply to our acquisitions of 

30-year and 15-year fixed-rate loans in lender swap transactions. These new minimum base guaranty fees were implemented 

in November 2016 and may affect our average charged guaranty fee on newly-acquired single family loans in future periods. 

For further discussion of FHFA’s establishment of minimum base guaranty fees, see “MD&A—Legislative and Regulatory 

Developments—FHFA Developments—Establishment of Minimum Base Guaranty Fees” in our Quarterly Report on Form 

10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2016 (“Second Quarter 2016 Form 10-Q”).

The single-family loans we acquired in the third quarter of 2016 continued to have a strong credit profile, with a weighted 

average original LTV ratio of 74% and a weighted average FICO credit score of 752. For more information on the credit risk 

profile of our single-family conventional loan acquisitions in the third quarter and first nine months of 2016, see “Risk 

Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management,” including “Table 27: Risk 

Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Business Volume and Guaranty Book of Business” in that section.

Whether the loans we acquire in the future will exhibit an overall credit profile and performance similar to our more recent 

acquisitions will depend on a number of factors, including: our future guaranty fee pricing and any impact of that pricing on 

the volume and mix of loans we acquire; our future eligibility standards and those of mortgage insurers, the Federal Housing 

Administration (“FHA”) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”); the percentage of loan originations representing 

refinancings; changes in interest rates; our future objectives and activities in support of those objectives, including actions we 

may take to reach additional underserved creditworthy borrowers; government policy; market and competitive conditions; 

and the volume and characteristics of HARP and high LTV refinance loans we acquire in the future. In addition, if our lender 

customers retain more of the higher-quality loans they originate, it could negatively affect the credit risk profile of our new 

single-family acquisitions. 

Providing Access to Credit Opportunities for Creditworthy Borrowers 

We are continuing our efforts to increase access to mortgage credit for creditworthy borrowers, consistent with the full extent 

of our applicable credit requirements and risk management practices. As part of these efforts, in 2014 we changed our 

eligibility requirements to increase our maximum LTV ratio from 95% to 97% for loans meeting certain criteria, and in 2015 

we announced an improved affordable lending product, HomeReady®, which is designed for creditworthy borrowers with 

lower and moderate incomes and provides expanded eligibility for financing homes in designated low-income communities. 

We began acquiring loans under our revised eligibility criteria in December 2014 and under HomeReady in December 2015. 

See “Business—Executive Summary—Single-Family Guaranty Book of Business—Providing Access to Credit Opportunities 

for Creditworthy Borrowers” in our 2015 Form 10-K for more information regarding these loans, including a discussion of 

their eligibility requirements, the number of these loans acquired in 2015 and our expectations regarding our future 

acquisitions of these loans.

We continue to seek new ways to responsibly expand access to mortgage credit. FHFA’s 2016 conservatorship scorecard 

specifies that in 2016 we should continue to assess impediments to credit access and develop recommendations to address 

these barriers. To the extent we are able to encourage lenders to increase access to mortgage credit, we may acquire a greater 

number of single-family loans with higher risk characteristics than we acquired in recent periods; however, we expect our 

single-family acquisitions will continue to have a strong overall credit risk profile given our current underwriting and 

eligibility standards and product design. We actively monitor the credit risk profile and credit performance of our singlefamily loan acquisitions, in conjunction with housing market and economic conditions, to determine if our pricing, eligibility 

and underwriting criteria accurately reflect the risks associated with loans we acquire or guarantee.

Contributions to the Housing and Mortgage Markets 

Liquidity and Support Activities

As a leading provider of residential mortgage credit in the United States, we indirectly enable families to buy, refinance or 

rent homes. During the third quarter of 2016, we continued to provide critical liquidity and support to the U.S. mortgage 

market in a number of important ways:
9

• 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 $184 billion in liquidity to the mortgage market 

in the third quarter of 2016 through our purchases of loans and guarantees of loans and securities. This liquidity 

enabled borrowers to complete approximately 375,000 mortgage refinancings and approximately 338,000 home 

purchases, and provided financing for approximately 240,000 units of multifamily housing. 

• Our role in the market enables qualified borrowers to have reliable access to affordable mortgage credit, including a 

variety of conforming mortgage products such as the prepayable 30-year fixed-rate mortgage that protects 

homeowners from fluctuations in interest rates.

• We provided approximately 26,500 loan workouts in the third quarter of 2016 to help homeowners stay in their 

homes or otherwise avoid foreclosure. Our loan workout efforts have helped to stabilize neighborhoods, home prices 

and the housing market. 

• We helped borrowers refinance loans, including through our Refi PlusTM initiative, which offers additional 

refinancing flexibility to eligible borrowers who are current on their loans, whose loans are owned or guaranteed by 

us and who meet certain additional criteria. We acquired approximately 35,000 Refi Plus loans in the third quarter of 

2016. Refinancings delivered to us through Refi Plus in the third quarter of 2016 reduced borrowers’ monthly 

mortgage payments by an average of $219. 

• We support affordability in the multifamily rental market. Approximately 90% of the multifamily units we financed 

in the third quarter of 2016 were affordable to families earning at or below 120% of the median income in their area, 

providing support for both workforce housing and affordable housing.

• 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 our 2015 Form 10-K in “Business—Business 

Segments—Capital Markets.”

2016 Market Share 

We were one of the largest issuers of mortgage-related securities in the secondary market during the third quarter of 2016. 

Our estimated market share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances was 38% in both the third quarter and 

second quarter of 2016, compared with 36% in the third quarter of 2015.

Historically, Fannie Mae MBS has had a trading advantage over comparable Freddie Mac Participation Certificates (“Freddie 

Mac PCs”); however, recently, there has no longer been a significant price difference between Fannie Mae MBS and 

comparable Freddie Mac PCs. We believe a significant driver of the recent convergence in price between Fannie Mae MBS 

and comparable Freddie Mac PCs is the market’s expectation of a single GSE mortgage-backed security in the future. Despite 

this price convergence, our market share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances remained unchanged in 

the third quarter of 2016 as compared with the prior quarter. If our market share declines in the future due to this trend or 

other factors, it could adversely affect our financial results.

We remained a continuous source of liquidity in the multifamily market in the third quarter and first nine months of 2016. We 

owned or guaranteed approximately 19% of the outstanding debt on multifamily properties as of June 30, 2016 (the latest 

date for which information is available). 

Serving Customer Needs and Improving Our Business Efficiency

We are engaged in various initiatives to better serve our customers’ needs and improve our business efficiency. We are 

committed to providing our lender partners with the products, services and tools they need to serve the market more 

effectively and efficiently. To further this commitment, we are focused on continuing to revise and clarify lenders’

representation and warranty obligations, implementing innovative new and enhanced tools that deliver greater value and 

certainty to lenders, and making our customers’ interactions with us simpler and more efficient. 

Continuing to revise and clarify lenders’ representation and warranty obligations. We have taken several actions in recent 

years to improve our representation and warranty framework and revise and clarify lenders’ representation and warranty 

obligations to us. These actions have significantly reduced uncertainty surrounding lenders’ repurchase risk relating to loans 

they deliver to us, and our intention is that these actions will encourage lenders to safely expand their lending to a wider 

range of qualified borrowers. As of September 30, 2016, over 2.8 million loans in our book of business had obtained relief 

from repurchases for breaches of certain representations and warranties. We continue to work on new ways to reduce or 

clarify lenders’ repurchase risk. For example, we are leveraging the verification tools we offer through our Desktop 

Underwriter® automated underwriting system to expand the representation and warranty relief we provide to lenders. In 

October 2016, we announced that we will provide lenders with representation and warranty relief with respect to borrower 
10

data that has been validated by Desktop Underwriter and with respect to property value where the appraisal has received a 

qualifying risk score in our Collateral Underwriter® appraisal review tool. See “Business—Executive Summary—Serving 

Customer Needs and Improving Our Business Efficiency” in our 2015 Form 10-K and “Risk Management—Credit Risk 

Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management” in both our 2015 Form 10-K and this report for further 

discussion of changes to our representation and warranty framework and actions we have taken to reduce and clarify lenders’

repurchase risk.

Implementing innovative new and enhanced tools that deliver greater value and certainty to lenders. As described in 

“Business—Executive Summary—Serving Customer Needs and Improving Our Business Efficiency” in our 2015 Form 10-

K, in 2015 we implemented a number of changes designed to help our customers originate mortgages with increased 

certainty, efficiency and lower costs. We continue to focus on improving our business to provide value to customers. For 

example:

• In September 2016, we incorporated trended credit data into Desktop Underwriter. Trended credit data refers to 

additional historical information on a borrower’s use of revolving credit accounts, including the balance, scheduled 

payments and actual payments made on these accounts. Incorporating trended credit data is expected to improve the 

accuracy of Desktop Underwriter’s credit risk assessment and benefit borrowers who regularly pay down their 

revolving debt. The September 2016 update to Desktop Underwriter also added the ability to underwrite loans where 

the borrower does not have a credit score, automating what was previously a manual process for lenders.

• In October 2016, we began offering third-party validation of borrower income data through Desktop Underwriter. 

We plan to expand this third-party validation service to borrower asset and employment data in December 2016. 

We expect these enhancements to Desktop Underwriter will help our lender customers originate mortgages with increased 

certainty, efficiency and lower costs, and also help increase access to credit for creditworthy borrowers.

Making our customers’ interactions with us simpler and more efficient. We are also engaged in a multi-year effort to improve 

our business efficiency and agility through simplification of our business processes and enhancements to our infrastructure. 

Many of these improvements are also designed to enhance our customers’ experience when doing business with us, including 

making our customers’ interactions with us simpler and more efficient. These efforts include replacing some of our systems 

with simpler, more automated infrastructure that will enable us to more efficiently process transactions and manage our book 

of business, as well as to better adapt to industry and regulatory changes in the future. We are also implementing 

infrastructure improvements to support the integration of our business with the common securitization platform and our 

ability to issue a single security. For information about the common securitization platform and single security, see “Business

—Housing Finance Reform—Conservator Developments” in our 2015 Form 10-K and “MD&A—Legislative and Regulatory 

Developments—FHFA Developments—Common Securitization Platform and Single Security” in our Second Quarter 2016 

Form 10-Q.

Treasury Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement

From 2009 through the first quarter of 2012, we received a total of $116.1 billion from Treasury under the senior preferred 

stock purchase agreement. This funding provided us with the capital and liquidity needed to fulfill our mission of providing 

liquidity and support to the nation’s housing finance markets and to avoid triggering mandatory receivership under the 

Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by the Federal Housing Finance 

Regulatory Reform Act of 2008 (together, the “GSE Act”). In addition, a portion of the $116.1 billion we received from 

Treasury was drawn to pay dividends to Treasury because, prior to 2013, our dividend payments on the senior preferred stock 

accrued at an annual rate of 10%, and we were directed by our conservator to pay these dividends to Treasury each quarter 

even when we did not have sufficient income to pay the dividend. We have not received funds from Treasury under the 

agreement since the first quarter of 2012. 

From 2008 through the third quarter of 2016, we paid a total of $151.4 billion in dividends to Treasury on the senior preferred 

stock. Under the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, dividend payments do not offset prior Treasury 

draws, and we are not permitted to pay down draws we have made under the agreement except in limited circumstances. 

Accordingly, the current aggregate liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock is $117.1 billion, due to the initial $1.0 

billion liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock (for which we did not receive cash proceeds) and the $116.1 billion

we have drawn from Treasury. 

The Director of FHFA has directed us to make dividend payments on the senior preferred stock on a quarterly basis. We 

expect to pay Treasury a senior preferred stock dividend of $3.0 billion by December 31, 2016 for the fourth quarter of 2016.

We expect to retain only a limited amount of any future net worth because we are required by the dividend provisions of the 

senior preferred stock and quarterly directives from our conservator to pay Treasury each quarter any dividends declared 
11

consisting of the amount, if any, by which our net worth as of the end of the immediately preceding fiscal quarter exceeds an 

applicable capital reserve amount. This capital reserve amount is $1.2 billion for each quarter of 2016, will decrease to $600 

million in 2017 and will decrease to zero in 2018. Those dividend payment provisions are referred to as “net worth sweep” 

dividend provisions.

Although we expect to remain profitable on an annual basis for the foreseeable future, due to our expectation of continued 

declining capital and the potential for significant volatility in our financial results, we could experience a net worth deficit in 

a future quarter, particularly as our capital reserve amount approaches or reaches zero. If that were to occur, we would be 

required to draw additional funds from Treasury under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement in order to avoid being 

placed into receivership. As of the date of this filing, the maximum amount of remaining funding under the agreement is 

$117.6 billion. If we were to draw additional funds from Treasury under the agreement in a future period, the amount of 

remaining funding under the agreement would be reduced by the amount of our draw. Dividend payments we make to 

Treasury do not restore or increase the amount of funding available to us under the agreement. See “Risk Factors” in our 

2015 Form 10-K for a discussion of the risks associated with our limited and declining capital.

As described in “Legal Proceedings” and “Note 16, Commitments and Contingencies,” several lawsuits have been filed by 

preferred and common stockholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac against one or more of the United States, Treasury and 

FHFA challenging actions taken by the defendants relating to the senior preferred stock purchase agreements and the 

conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, including challenges to the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the 

senior preferred stock. We are also a party to some of those lawsuits. We cannot predict the course or the outcome of these 

lawsuits, or the actions the U.S. government (including Treasury or FHFA) may take in response to any ruling or finding in 

any of these lawsuits.

Housing and Mortgage Market and Economic Conditions 

According to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis advance estimate, the inflation-adjusted U.S. gross domestic product, or 

GDP, rose by 2.9% on an annualized basis in the third quarter of 2016, compared with an increase of 1.4% in the second 

quarter of 2016. The overall economy gained an estimated 575,000 non-farm jobs in the third quarter of 2016. According to 

the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, over the 12 months ending in September 2016, the economy created an estimated 2.4 

million non-farm jobs. The unemployment rate was 5.0% in September 2016, compared with 4.9% in June 2016. 

According to the Federal Reserve, total U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding, which includes $10.1 trillion of singlefamily debt outstanding, was estimated to be approximately $11.2 trillion as of June 30, 2016 (the latest date for which 

information is available) and $11.1 trillion as of March 31, 2016. 

Housing sales were mixed in the third quarter of 2016 as compared with the second quarter of 2016. Total existing home sales 

averaged 5.4 million units annualized in the third quarter of 2016, a 2.2% decrease from the second quarter of 2016, 

according to data from the National Association of REALTORS®. Sales of foreclosed homes and preforeclosure, or “short,” 

sales (together, “distressed sales”) accounted for 4% of existing home sales in September 2016, compared with 6% in June 

2016 and 7% in September 2015. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, new single-family home sales increased during the 

third quarter of 2016, averaging an annualized rate of 599,000 units, a 6.1% gain from the second quarter of 2016. 

The number of months’ supply, or the inventory/sales ratio, of available existing homes remained unchanged in the third

quarter of 2016, while the supply of available new homes decreased during the quarter. According to the National Association 

of REALTORS, the months’ supply of existing unsold homes was 4.5 months as of September 30, 2016 and June 30, 2016. 

According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the months’ supply of new single-family unsold homes was 4.8 months as of 

September 30, 2016, compared with 5.2 months as of June 30, 2016. 

The overall mortgage market serious delinquency rate fell to 3.1% as of June 30, 2016 (the latest date for which information 

is available), according to the Mortgage Bankers Association’s National Delinquency Survey, its lowest level since the third 

quarter of 2007, compared with 3.3% as of March 31, 2016. We provide information about Fannie Mae’s serious delinquency 

rate, which decreased in the third quarter of 2016, in “Single-Family Guaranty Book of Business—Credit Performance.” 

Based on our home price index, we estimate that home prices on a national basis increased by 1.5% in the third quarter of 

2016 and by 5.7% in the first nine months of 2016, following increases of 4.7% in 2015, 4.3% in 2014 and 7.8% in 2013. 

Despite the recent increases in home prices, we estimate that, through September 30, 2016, home prices on a national basis 

remained 1.1% below 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. 

Thirty-year fixed-rate mortgage rates ended the quarter at 3.42% for the week of September 29, 2016, down from 3.48% for 

the week of June 30, 2016, according to Freddie Mac’s Primary Mortgage Market Survey®. 
12

Recently, the prices of Fannie Mae MBS and comparable Freddie Mac PCs in the “To-Be-Announced” (“TBA”) market have 

converged. For example, Fannie Mae fixed-rate 30-year MBS with a coupon of 3.0% traded 13 basis points higher than the 

comparable Freddie Mac Gold fixed-rate PC security as of June 30, 2016, compared with only 3 basis points higher as of 

September 30, 2016.

During the third quarter of 2016, the multifamily sector exhibited stable fundamentals, according to preliminary third-party 

data, with the estimated national vacancy level remaining at the same level as in the second quarter of 2016, coupled with 

increasing rent growth. The estimated national multifamily vacancy rate for institutional investment-type apartment 

properties was 5.0% as of September 30, 2016, the same as of June 30, 2016, but up from 4.8% as of September 30, 2015. 

National asking rents increased by an estimated 1.0% during the third quarter of 2016, the same percentage as during the 

second quarter of 2016, but down from the estimated 1.3% increase during the third quarter of 2015. Because estimated 

multifamily rent growth has outpaced wage growth over the past few years, multifamily rental housing affordability has 

declined in recent years. 

Continued demand for multifamily rental units was reflected in the estimated positive net absorption (that is, the net change 

in the number of occupied rental units during the time period) of approximately 38,000 units during the third quarter of 2016, 

according to preliminary data from Reis, Inc. While that is an increase from the approximately 36,000 units absorbed during 

the second quarter of 2016, the pace of absorption slowed compared with the approximately 41,000 units absorbed during the 

third quarter of 2015. As a result of the continued demand for multifamily rental units over the past few years, there has been 

an increase in the amount of new multifamily construction development nationally. Nearly 364,000 new multifamily units are 

expected to be completed this year. Although the bulk of this new supply is concentrated in a limited number of metropolitan 

areas, we believe this increase in supply will result in an increase in the national multifamily vacancy rate and a slowdown in 

rent growth next year.

Outlook

Uncertainty Regarding our Future Status. We expect continued significant uncertainty regarding the future of our company 

and the housing finance system, including how long the company will continue to exist in its current form, the extent of our 

role in the market, how long we will be in conservatorship, 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, and whether we will 

continue to exist following conservatorship.

We cannot predict the prospects for the enactment, timing or final content of housing finance reform legislation. See 

“Business—Housing Finance Reform” in our 2015 Form 10-K for a discussion of proposals for reform of the housing finance 

system, including the GSEs, that could materially affect our business, including proposals to wind down Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac. See “Risk Factors” in both this report and our 2015 Form 10-K for a discussion of the risks to our business 

relating to the uncertain future of our company.

Financial Results. We continued to be profitable in the third quarter of 2016, with net income of $3.2 billion. We expect to 

remain profitable on an annual basis for the foreseeable future; however, certain factors, such as changes in interest rates or 

home prices, could result in significant volatility in our financial results from quarter to quarter or year to year. Our future 

financial results also will be affected by a number of other factors, including: our guaranty fee rates; the volume of singlefamily mortgage originations in the future; the size, composition and quality of our retained mortgage portfolio and guaranty 

book of business; and economic and housing market conditions. Although we expect to remain profitable on an annual basis 

for the foreseeable future, due to our expectation of continued declining capital and the potential for significant volatility in 

our financial results, we could experience a net worth deficit in a future quarter, particularly as our capital reserve amount 

approaches or reaches zero. See “Treasury Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement” above and “Risk Factors” in our 

2015 Form 10-K for more information on, and the risks associated with, our limited and declining capital. In addition, our 

expectations for our future financial results do not take into account the impact on our business of potential future legislative 

or regulatory changes, which could have a material impact on our financial results, particularly the enactment of housing 

finance reform legislation as noted in “Uncertainty Regarding our Future Status” above. 

Revenues. We currently have two primary sources of revenues: (1) the guaranty fees we receive for managing the credit risk 

on loans underlying Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties; and (2) the difference between interest income earned on the 

assets in our retained mortgage portfolio and the interest expense associated with the debt that funds those assets. In recent 

years, an increasing portion of our net interest income has been derived from guaranty fees rather than from our retained 

mortgage portfolio assets, due to the impact of guaranty fee increases implemented in 2012 and the reduction of our retained 

mortgage portfolio. More than two-thirds of our net interest income for the first nine months of 2016 was derived from the 

loans underlying our Fannie Mae MBS in consolidated trusts, which primarily generate income through guaranty fees. We 

expect that guaranty fees will continue to account for an increasing portion of our net interest income.
13

We expect continued decreases in the size of our retained mortgage portfolio, which will continue to negatively impact our 

net interest income and net revenues; however, we also expect increases in our guaranty fee revenues will partially offset the 

negative impact of the decline in our retained mortgage portfolio. We expect our guaranty fee revenues to increase over the 

next several years, as loans with lower guaranty fees liquidate from our book of business and are replaced with new loans 

with higher guaranty fees. The extent to which the positive impact of increased guaranty fee revenues will offset the negative 

impact of the decline in the size of our retained mortgage portfolio will depend on many factors, including: changes to 

guaranty fee pricing we may make in the future and their impact on our competitive environment and guaranty fee revenues; 

the size, composition and quality of our guaranty book of business; the life of the loans in our guaranty book of business; the 

size, composition and quality of our retained mortgage portfolio; economic and housing market conditions, including changes 

in interest rates; our market share; and legislative and regulatory changes.

Overall Market Conditions. While we expect the single-family serious delinquency rate for the overall mortgage market will 

continue to decline, we believe the rate of decline will be gradual. We expect the national single-family serious delinquency 

rate will remain high compared with pre-housing crisis levels because it will take some time for the remaining delinquent 

loans originated prior to 2009 to work their way through the foreclosure process.

We forecast that total originations in the U.S. single-family mortgage market in 2016 will increase from 2015 levels by 

approximately 6% from an estimated $1.73 trillion in 2015 to $1.83 trillion in 2016, and that the amount of originations in the 

U.S. single-family mortgage market that are refinancings will increase from an estimated $808 billion in 2015 to $820 billion

in 2016.

Home Prices. Based on our home price index, we estimate that home prices on a national basis increased by 1.5% in the third

quarter of 2016 and by 5.7% in the first nine months of 2016. We expect the rate of home price appreciation in 2016 to be 

slightly higher than the rate in 2015. Future home price changes may be very different from our expectations as a result of

significant inherent uncertainty in the current market environment, including uncertainty about the effect of recent and future 

changes in mortgage rates; actions the federal government has taken and may take with respect to fiscal policies, mortgage 

finance programs and policies, and housing finance reform; the Federal Reserve’s purchases and sales of mortgage-backed 

securities; the impact of those actions on and changes generally in unemployment and the general economic and interest rate 

environment; and the impact on the U.S. economy of global economic and political conditions. We also expect significant 

regional variation in the timing and rate of home price growth. 

Credit Losses. Our credit losses, which include our charge-offs, net of recoveries, reflect our realization of losses on our 

loans. Our credit losses were $3.0 billion for the first nine months of 2016, down from $8.7 billion for the first nine months 

of 2015. We expect our credit losses to be lower in 2016 than our 2015 credit losses. See “Consolidated Results of Operations

—Credit-Related Income (Expense)—Credit Loss Performance Metrics” for a discussion of our credit losses for the third 

quarter and first nine months of 2016 and 2015, including the impact on our credit losses for the first nine months of 2015 of 

our adoption of FHFA’s Advisory Bulletin AB 2012-02, “Framework for Adversely Classifying Loans, Other Real Estate 

Owned, and Other Assets and Listing Assets for Special Mention” (the “Advisory Bulletin”) and a change in our accounting 

policy for nonaccrual loans, which collectively resulted in $3.6 billion in charge-offs in the first nine months of 2015.

Loss Reserves. Our combined loss reserves were $23.0 billion as of September 30, 2016, down from $28.6 billion as of 

December 31, 2015. Our loss reserves have declined substantially from their peak and are expected to decline further. For a 

discussion of the factors that contributed to the decline in our loss reserves in the third quarter and first nine months of 2016, 

see “Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related Income (Expense)” and “Consolidated Balance Sheet Analysis—

Mortgage Loans.”

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 our future performance, including estimates and 

expectations regarding our future financial results and profitability, the level and sources of our future revenues and net 

interest income, our future dividend payments to Treasury, the credit characteristics of, and the credit risk posed by, our future 

acquisitions, our future credit risk transfer transactions, our future credit losses and our future loss reserves. We also present a 

number of estimates and expectations in this executive summary regarding future housing market conditions, including 

expectations regarding future single-family loan delinquency rates, future mortgage originations, future refinancings, future 

home prices and future conditions in the multifamily market. These estimates and expectations are forward-looking 

statements based on our current assumptions regarding numerous factors. Our future estimates of our performance and 

housing market conditions, as well as the actual results, 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, including 

negative interest rates; changes in unemployment rates and other macroeconomic and housing market variables; our future 

guaranty fee pricing and the impact of that pricing on our guaranty fee revenues and competitive environment; our future 

serious delinquency rates; our future objectives and activities in support of those objectives, including actions we may take to 
14

reach additional underserved creditworthy borrowers; future legislative or regulatory requirements or changes that have a 

significant impact on our business, such as the enactment of housing finance reform legislation; actions we may be required 

to take by FHFA, in its role as our conservator or as our regulator, such as changes in the type of business we do or 

implementation of a single security for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; limitations on our business imposed by FHFA, in its 

role as our conservator or as our regulator; future updates to our models relating to our loss reserves, including the 

assumptions used by these models; future changes to our accounting policies; significant changes in modification and 

foreclosure activity; the volume and pace of future nonperforming loan sales and their impact on our results and serious 

delinquency rates; changes in borrower behavior, such as an increasing number of underwater borrowers who strategically 

default on their mortgage loans; the effectiveness of our loss mitigation strategies, management of our REO inventory and 

pursuit of contractual remedies; whether our counterparties meet their obligations in full; resolution or settlement agreements 

we may enter into with our counterparties; changes in the fiscal and monetary policies of the Federal Reserve, including any 

change in the Federal Reserve’s policy towards the reinvestment of principal payments of mortgage-backed securities or any 

future sales of such securities; changes in the fair value of our assets and liabilities; changes in generally accepted accounting 

principles (“GAAP”); credit availability; global political risks; natural disasters, environmental disasters, terrorist attacks, 

pandemics or other major disruptive events; information security breaches; and other factors, including those discussed in 

“Forward-Looking Statements,” “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report and in our 2015 Form 10-K. Due to the large size 

of our guaranty book of business, even small changes in these factors could have a significant impact on our financial results 

for a particular period.

LEGISLATIVE AND REGULATORY DEVELOPMENTS

The information in this section updates and supplements information regarding legislative and regulatory developments set 

forth in “Business—Housing Finance Reform” and “Business—Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities” in our 2015

Form 10-K and in “MD&A—Legislative and Regulatory Developments” in our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the 

quarter ended March 31, 2016 (“First Quarter 2016 Form 10-Q”) and in our Second Quarter 2016 Form 10-Q. Also see “Risk 

Factors” in this report and in our 2015 Form 10-K for a discussion of risks relating to legislative and regulatory matters.

Housing Finance Reform

Congress continues to consider housing finance reform that could result in significant changes in our structure and role in the 

future. As described in “Business—Housing Finance Reform—Legislative Developments” in our 2015 Form 10-K, in the 

first session of the 114th Congress, which convened in January 2015, several bills were introduced and considered in the 

Senate and the House of Representatives relating to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the housing finance system, two of which 

were enacted into law. 

We expect Congress to continue to consider legislation relating to the GSEs and housing finance reform, including 

conducting hearings and considering legislation that would alter the housing finance system or the activities or operations of 

the GSEs. See “Risk Factors” in this report and our 2015 Form 10-K for a discussion of the risks to our business relating to 

the uncertain future of our company.

Dodd-Frank Act—FHFA Rule Regarding Stress Testing

Pursuant to an FHFA rule implementing a provision of the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, we 

are required to conduct an annual stress test, based on our data as of December 31, using three different scenarios of financial 

conditions provided by FHFA: baseline, adverse and severely adverse. As required by the rule, we published our most recent 

stress test results for the severely adverse scenario on our website on August 8, 2016. 

2015 Housing Goals Performance

We are subject to housing goals, which establish specified requirements for our mortgage acquisitions relating to affordability 

or location. Our single-family performance is measured against the lower of benchmarks established by FHFA or goalsqualifying originations in the primary mortgage market. Multifamily goals are established as a number of units to be 

financed. 

In October 2016, after the release of data reported under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act, FHFA notified us that it had 

preliminarily determined that we met three of our five single-family housing goals and all of our multifamily housing goals 

for 2015. For the single-family low-income families home purchase goal, FHFA preliminarily determined that our 

performance was 23.5% of our 2015 acquisitions of single-family owner-occupied purchase money mortgage loans, which 

failed to meet the FHFA-established benchmark of 24% or the overall market level of 23.6% for 2015. For the single-family 
15

very low-income families home purchase goal, FHFA preliminarily determined that our performance was 5.6% of our 2015 

acquisitions of single-family owner-occupied purchase money mortgage loans, which failed to meet the FHFA-established 

benchmark of 6% or the overall market level of 5.8% for 2015. 

If FHFA’s final determination is that we did not meet these housing goals, it will determine whether the goals were feasible. If 

FHFA finds that these 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 money penalties.

See “Business—Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities—The GSE Act—Housing Goals and Duty to Serve 

Underserved Markets—Housing Goals for 2015 to 2017” in our 2015 Form 10-K for a more detailed discussion of our 

housing goals.

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 condensed 

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” in this report and in our 2015 Form 

10-K. 

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” in our 2015 

Form 10-K for a discussion of the risks associated with the need for management to make judgments and estimates in 

applying our accounting policies and methods. We have identified two 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: fair value measurement and combined loss reserves.

See “MD&A—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” in our 2015 Form 10-K for a discussion of these critical 

accounting policies and estimates.

CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

This section provides a discussion of our condensed consolidated results of operations and should be read together with our 

condensed consolidated financial statements, including the accompanying notes.
16

Table 3: Summary of Condensed Consolidated Results of Operations

For the Three Months For the Nine Months

Ended September 30, Ended September 30,

2016 2015 Variance 2016 2015 Variance

(Dollars in millions)

Net interest income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,435 $ 5,588 $ (153) $ 15,490 $ 16,332 $ (842)

Fee and other income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 259 (84) 552 1,123 (571)

Net revenues. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,610 5,847 (237) 16,042 17,455 (1,413)

Investment gains, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467 299 168 934 1,155 (221)

Fair value losses, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (491) (2,589) 2,098 (4,971) (1,902) (3,069)

Administrative expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (661) (952) 291 (2,027) (2,364) 337

Credit-related income (expense)

Benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 1,550 (877) 3,458 1,050 2,408

Foreclosed property expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (110) (497) 387 (507) (1,152) 645

Total credit-related income (expense) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 563 1,053 (490) 2,951 (102) 3,053

Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011

(“TCCA”) fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (465) (413) (52) (1,358) (1,192) (166)

Other expenses, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (300) (215) (85) (818) (412) (406)

Income before federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,723 3,030 1,693 10,753 12,638 (1,885)

Provision for federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,527) (1,070) (457) (3,475) (4,150) 675

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,196 $ 1,960 $ 1,236 $ 7,278 $ 8,488 $ (1,210)

Total comprehensive income attributable to Fannie Mae . . . . $ 2,989 $ 2,213 $ 776 $ 6,794 $ 8,368 $ (1,574)

Net Interest Income

We currently have two primary sources of net interest income: (1) the guaranty fees we receive for managing the credit risk 

on loans underlying Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties; and (2) the difference between interest income earned on the 

assets in our retained mortgage portfolio and the interest expense associated with the debt that funds those assets. We 

recognize almost all of our guaranty fee revenue in net interest income due to the consolidation of the substantial majority of 

loans underlying our Fannie Mae MBS in consolidated trusts on our balance sheet. Those guaranty fees are the primary 

component of the difference between the interest income on loans in consolidated trusts and the interest expense on the debt 

of consolidated trusts.
17

Table 4 displays an analysis of our net interest income, average balances, and related yields earned on assets and incurred on 

liabilities. For most components of the average balances, we use a daily weighted average of amortized cost. When daily 

average balance information is not available, such as for mortgage loans, we use monthly averages. Table 5 displays the 

change in our net interest income between periods and the extent to which that variance is attributable to: (1) changes in the 

volume of our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities or (2) changes in the interest rates of these assets and 

liabilities.

Table 4: Analysis of Net Interest Income and Yield

For the Three Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Average

Balance

Interest

Income/

Expense

Average

Rates

Earned/

Paid

Average

Balance

Interest

Income/

Expense

Average

Rates

Earned/

Paid

(Dollars in millions)

Interest-earning assets:

Mortgage loans of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 226,334 $ 2,357 4.17 % $ 252,272 $ 2,443 3.87 %

Mortgage loans of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,837,241 23,254 3.28 2,796,172 24,537 3.51

Total mortgage loans(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,063,575 25,611 3.34 3,048,444 26,980 3.54

Mortgage-related securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63,796 616 3.86 106,939 1,153 4.31

Elimination of Fannie Mae MBS held in retained

mortgage portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (44,538) (413) 3.71 (74,903) (810) 4.33

Total mortgage-related securities, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,258 203 4.22 32,036 343 4.28

Non-mortgage-related securities(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,013 71 0.49 47,794 17 0.14

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under

agreements to resell or similar arrangements. . . . . . . . . 30,770 39 0.50 26,110 15 0.23

Advances to lenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,961 27 2.14 4,354 22 1.98

Total interest-earning assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,175,577 $ 25,951 3.27 % $3,158,738 $ 27,377 3.47 %

Interest-bearing liabilities:

Short-term funding debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50,579 $ 55 0.43 % $ 83,870 $ 36 0.17 %

Long-term funding debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302,629 1,647 2.18 331,417 1,861 2.25

Total funding debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353,208 1,702 1.93 415,287 1,897 1.83

Debt securities of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,884,409 19,227 2.67 2,835,104 20,702 2.92

Elimination of Fannie Mae MBS held in retained

mortgage portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (44,538) (413) 3.71 (74,903) (810) 4.33

Total debt securities of consolidated trusts held by third

parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,839,871 18,814 2.65 2,760,201 19,892 2.88

Total interest-bearing liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,193,079 $ 20,516 2.57 % $3,175,488 $ 21,789 2.74 %

Net interest income/net interest yield. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,435 0.68 % $ 5,588 0.71 %
18

For the Nine Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Average

Balance

Interest

Income/

Expense

Average

Rates

Earned/

Paid

Average

Balance

Interest

Income/

Expense

Average

Rates

Earned/

Paid

(Dollars in millions)

Interest-earning assets:

Mortgage loans of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 232,222 $ 7,082 4.07 % $ 261,794 $ 7,280 3.71 %

Mortgage loans of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,826,405 71,746 3.38 2,789,593 73,426 3.51

Total mortgage loans(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,058,627 78,828 3.44 3,051,387 80,706 3.53

Mortgage-related securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73,820 2,237 4.04 114,732 3,869 4.50

Elimination of Fannie Mae MBS held in retained

mortgage portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (50,854) (1,524) 4.00 (79,914) (2,650) 4.42

Total mortgage-related securities, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,966 713 4.14 34,818 1,219 4.67

Non-mortgage-related securities(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53,509 182 0.45 44,836 42 0.12

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under

agreements to resell or similar arrangements. . . . . . . . . 25,885 92 0.47 30,708 40 0.17

Advances to lenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,219 68 2.11 4,166 64 2.02

Total interest-earning assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,165,206 $ 79,883 3.36 % $3,165,915 $ 82,071 3.46 %

Interest-bearing liabilities:

Short-term funding debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 55,580 $ 161 0.38 % $ 90,707 $ 98 0.14 %

Long-term funding debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308,349 5,237 2.26 345,503 5,706 2.20

Total funding debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 363,929 5,398 1.98 436,210 5,804 1.77

Debt securities of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,870,629 60,519 2.81 2,843,823 62,585 2.93

Elimination of Fannie Mae MBS held in retained

mortgage portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (50,854) (1,524) 4.00 (79,914) (2,650) 4.42

Total debt securities of consolidated trusts held by third

parties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,819,775 58,995 2.79 2,763,909 59,935 2.89

Total interest-bearing liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,183,704 $ 64,393 2.70 % $3,200,119 $ 65,739 2.74 %

Net interest income/net interest yield. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 15,490 0.65 % $ 16,332 0.69 %

As of September 30,

2016 2015

Selected benchmark interest rates

3-month LIBOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.85 % 0.33 %

2-year swap rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.01 0.75

5-year swap rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.18 1.38

10-year swap rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.46 2.00

30-year Fannie Mae MBS par coupon rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.36 2.80

__________

(1) Average balance includes mortgage loans on nonaccrual status. Typically, interest income on nonaccrual mortgage loans is recognized 

when cash is received. Interest income not recognized for loans on nonaccrual status was $318 million and $977 million, respectively, for 

the third quarter and first nine months of 2016 compared with $409 million and $1.3 billion, respectively, for the third quarter and first 

nine months of 2015.

(2) Includes cash equivalents.
19

Table 5: Rate/Volume Analysis of Changes in Net Interest Income

For the Three Months Ended For the Nine Months Ended

September 30, 2016 vs. 2015 September 30, 2016 vs. 2015

Total Variance Due to:(1) Total Variance Due to:(1)

Variance Volume Rate Variance Volume Rate

(Dollars in millions)

Interest income:

Mortgage loans of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (86) $ (262) $ 176 $ (198) $ (865) $ 667

Mortgage loans of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,283) 356 (1,639) (1,680) 960 (2,640)

Total mortgage loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,369) 94 (1,463) (1,878) 95 (1,973)

Total mortgage-related securities, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (140) (133) (7) (506) (381) (125)

Non-mortgage-related securities(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 4 50 140 10 130

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to

resell or similar arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 3 21 52 (7) 59

Advances to lenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 2 4 1 3

Total interest income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (1,426) $ (29) $ (1,397) $ (2,188) $ (282) $ (1,906)

Interest expense:

Short-term funding debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 (19) 38 63 (50) 113

Long-term funding debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (214) (158) (56) (469) (627) 158

Total funding debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (195) (177) (18) (406) (677) 271

Total debt securities of consolidated trusts held by third parties . (1,078) 649 (1,727) (940) 1,475 (2,415)

Total interest expense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (1,273) $ 472 $ (1,745) $ (1,346) $ 798 $ (2,144)

Net interest income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (153) $ (501) $ 348 $ (842) $ (1,080) $ 238

__________

(1) Combined rate/volume variances are allocated to both rate and volume based on the relative size of each variance.

(2) Includes cash equivalents.

Net interest income decreased in the third quarter and first nine months of 2016 compared with the third quarter and first nine 

months of 2015, primarily due to a decline in the average balance of our retained mortgage portfolio as we continued to 

reduce this portfolio pursuant to the requirements of our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury and FHFA’s 

additional portfolio cap. The average balance of our retained mortgage portfolio was 19% lower in the third quarter and first 

nine months of 2016 compared with the third quarter and first nine months of 2015. The decrease in net interest income was 

partially offset by increased guaranty fee revenue, as loans with higher guaranty fees became a larger part of our guaranty 

book of business in the third quarter and first nine months of 2016. Net interest yield decreased in the third quarter and first 

nine months of 2016 compared with the third quarter and first nine months of 2015, due to the decline in the percentage of 

net interest income from our retained mortgage portfolio, which has a higher net interest yield than the net interest yield from 

guaranty fees. See “Business Segment Results—The Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio” for more information 

about our retained mortgage portfolio.

Fee and Other Income

Fee and other income includes transaction fees, multifamily fees, technology fees and other miscellaneous income. Fee and 

other income decreased in the third quarter of 2016 compared with the third quarter of 2015 primarily due to lower 

multifamily fees driven by a decrease in yield maintenance income resulting from lower prepayment volumes. Fee and other 

income decreased in the first nine months of 2016 compared with the first nine months of 2015 primarily due to a gain of 

$227 million in the second quarter of 2015 from the sale of our remaining unsecured bankruptcy claims against Lehman 

Brothers and its subsidiaries. In addition, we recognized lower multifamily fees in the first nine months of 2016 driven by a 

decrease in yield maintenance income resulting from lower prepayment volumes. We recognized lower technology fees in the 

first nine months of 2016 as a result of eliminating fees charged to our customers for using our Desktop Underwriter and 

Desktop Originator® systems beginning in June 2015.
20

Investment Gains, Net

Investment gains, net primarily includes gains and losses recognized from the sale of available-for-sale (“AFS”) securities 

and loans, gains and losses recognized on the consolidation and deconsolidation of securities, net other-than-temporary 

impairments recognized on our investments, and lower of cost or fair value adjustments on HFS loans. Investment gains 

increased in the third quarter of 2016 compared with the third quarter of 2015 primarily due to higher gains on sales of AFS 

securities in the third quarter of 2016 compared with the third quarter of 2015 as a result of an increase in sales volume and 

higher prices in the third quarter of 2016. Investment gains decreased in the first nine months of 2016 compared with the first 

nine months of 2015 primarily due to gains on sales of multifamily loans in 2015 that did not occur in 2016 and greater losses 

on HFS loans due to lower of cost or fair value adjustments in the first nine months of 2016 compared with the first nine 

months of 2015.

Fair Value Losses, Net

Table 6 displays the components of our fair value gains and losses.

Table 6: Fair Value Losses, Net

For the Three Months

Ended September 30,

For the Nine Months

Ended September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Risk management derivatives fair value gains (losses) attributable to:

Net contractual interest expense accruals on interest rate swaps. . . . . . . $ (295) $ (266) $ (855) $ (694)

Net change in fair value during the period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 362 (2,138) (2,639) (916)

Total risk management derivatives fair value gains (losses), net . . . 67 (2,404) (3,494) (1,610)

Mortgage commitment derivatives fair value losses, net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (216) (361) (945) (427)

Total derivatives fair value losses, net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (149) (2,765) (4,439) (2,037)

Trading securities gains, net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 13 88 69

CAS debt gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (388) 135 (616) 26

Other, net(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 28 (4) 40

Fair value losses, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (491) $ (2,589) $ (4,971) $ (1,902)

__________

(1) Consists of debt fair value gains (losses), net; debt foreign exchange gains (losses), net; and mortgage loans fair value gains (losses), 

net.

Risk Management Derivatives Fair Value Gains (Losses), Net

Risk management derivative instruments are an integral part of our interest rate risk management strategy. We supplement 

our issuance of debt securities with derivative instruments to further reduce interest rate risk. We recognized risk management 

derivative fair value gains in the third quarter of 2016 primarily as a result of increases in the fair value of our pay-fixed 

derivatives due to increases in longer-term swap rates during the period. We recognized risk management derivative fair 

value losses in the third quarter of 2015 and first nine months of 2015 and 2016 primarily as a result of decreases in the fair 

value of our pay-fixed derivatives due to declines in longer-term swap rates during the periods.

We present, by derivative instrument type, the fair value gains and losses, net on our derivatives in “Note 9, Derivative 

Instruments.”

Mortgage Commitment Derivatives Fair Value Losses, Net

We recognized fair value losses on our mortgage commitments in the third quarter and first nine months of 2016 and 2015 

primarily due to losses on commitments to sell mortgage-related securities driven by an increase in prices as interest rates 

decreased during the commitment periods. 
21

CAS Debt Fair Value Gains (Losses), Net

We enter into various credit risk transfer transactions, including the issuance of CAS debt, in order to reduce the economic 

risk to us and to taxpayers of future borrower defaults. CAS debt we issued prior to 2016 is reported at fair value as “Debt of 

Fannie Mae” in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. We recognized fair value losses on CAS debt reported at fair 

value in the third quarter and first nine months of 2016 primarily due to tightening spreads between CAS yields and LIBOR 

during the periods. We recognized fair value gains on CAS debt reported at fair value in the third quarter and first nine 

months of 2015 primarily due to widening spreads between CAS yields and LIBOR during the periods. For further discussion 

of our credit risk transfer transactions, see “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit 

Risk Management—Transfer of Mortgage Credit Risk—Credit Risk-Sharing Transactions.”

Administrative Expenses

Administrative expenses decreased in the third quarter and first nine months of 2016 compared with the third quarter and first 

nine months of 2015 primarily due to the recognition of expenses related to the settlement of our defined benefit pension plan 

obligations in the third quarter of 2015. The actuarial losses of $305 million, previously recorded in “Accumulated other 

comprehensive income,” were recognized in “Administrative expenses” and the associated tax amounts were recognized in 

“Provision for federal income taxes” in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income for 

the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015.

Credit-Related Income (Expense)

We refer to our provision (benefit) for loan losses and provision (benefit) for guaranty losses collectively as our “provision 

(benefit) for credit losses.” Credit-related income (expense) consists of our provision (benefit) for credit losses and foreclosed 

property expense (income).

Benefit for Credit Losses

Our total loss reserves provide for an estimate of credit losses incurred in our guaranty book of business, including 

concessions we granted borrowers upon modification of their loans. We establish our loss reserves through our provision for 

credit losses for losses that we believe have been incurred and will eventually be realized over time in our financial 

statements. When we reduce our loss reserves, we recognize a benefit for credit losses. When we determine that a loan is 

uncollectible, typically upon foreclosure or other liquidation event (such as a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or a short sale), we 

recognize a charge-off against our loss reserves. For a subset of delinquent single-family loans, we charge off the portion of 

the loans that is deemed uncollectible prior to foreclosure when the loans have been delinquent for a specified length of time 

and meet specified mark-to-market LTV ratios. We also recognize charge-offs upon the redesignation of nonperforming loans 

from HFI to HFS. We record recoveries of previously charged-off amounts as a reduction to charge-offs.

Table 7 displays the components of our total loss reserves and our total fair value losses previously recognized on loans 

purchased out of unconsolidated MBS trusts reflected in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Because these fair value 

losses lowered our recorded loan balances, we have fewer inherent losses in our guaranty book of business and consequently 

require lower total loss reserves. For these reasons, 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. The fair value losses shown in Table 7 represent credit losses we expect to realize in the future or amounts that will 

eventually be recovered, 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. We exclude these fair value losses from our 

credit loss calculation as described in “Credit Loss Performance Metrics.”
22

Table 7: Total Loss Reserves

As of

September 30,

2016

December 31,

2015

(Dollars in millions)

Allowance for loan losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 22,706 $ 27,951

Reserve for guaranty losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 297 639

Combined loss reserves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,003 28,590

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 184

Total loss reserves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,091 28,774

Fair value losses previously recognized on acquired credit-impaired loans(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,037 8,083

Total loss reserves and fair value losses previously recognized on acquired credit-impaired

loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 30,128 $ 36,857

__________

(1) Represents the fair value losses on loans purchased out of unconsolidated MBS trusts reflected in our condensed consolidated balance 

sheets.

The reserve for guaranty losses decreased from December 31, 2015 to September 30, 2016 primarily due to increased 

collateral underlying certain trusts, as well as lower interest rates and higher home prices.

Table 8: Changes in Combined Loss Reserves

For the Three Months

Ended September 30,

For the Nine Months

Ended September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Changes in combined loss reserves:

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 24,089 $ 31,808 $ 28,590 $ 36,787

Benefit for credit losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (673) (1,550) (3,458) (1,050)

Charge-offs(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (630) (801) (2,761) (8,287)

Recoveries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 250 536 1,132

Other(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 (12) 96 1,113

Ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 23,003 $ 29,695 $ 23,003 $ 29,695

As of

September 30, 

2016

December 31,

2015

(Dollars in millions)

Allocation of combined loss reserves:

Balance at end of each period attributable to:

Single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 22,796 $ 28,325

Multifamily. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207 265

 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 23,003 $ 28,590

Single-family and multifamily combined loss reserves as a percentage of applicable

guaranty book of business:

Single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.81 % 1.00 %

Multifamily. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.09 0.12

Combined loss reserves as a percentage of:

Total guaranty book of business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.75 % 0.94 %

Recorded investment in nonaccrual loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51.33 57.86
23

_________

(1) Our charge-offs for 2015 include the initial charge-offs associated with our approach to adopting the charge-off provisions of the 

Advisory Bulletin, as well as charge-offs relating to a change in accounting policy for nonaccrual loans.

(2) Amounts represent changes in other loss reserves which are reflected in benefit for credit losses, charge-offs and recoveries. 

The amount of our provision or benefit for credit losses may vary from period to period based on factors such as changes in 

actual and expected home prices, borrower payment behavior, the types and volumes of our loss mitigation activities, the 

volumes of foreclosures completed, redesignations of loans from HFI to HFS, and fluctuations in interest rates. In addition, 

our provision or benefit for credit losses and our loss reserves can be impacted by updates to the models, assumptions and 

data used in determining our allowance for loan losses.

Our benefit for credit losses decreased in the third quarter of 2016 compared to the third quarter of 2015 primarily due to a 

small increase in interest rates in the third quarter of 2016 compared to a decline in interest rates in the third quarter of 2015, 

as well as a smaller benefit from forecasted and actual home price increases as housing market conditions continued to 

improve and we had fewer nonperforming loans held for investment in our book of business in the third quarter of 2016 

compared with the third quarter of 2015. 

Our benefit for credit losses increased in the first nine months of 2016 compared to the first nine months of 2015 primarily 

due to declining interest rates in the first nine months of 2016 compared with increasing interest rates in the first nine months 

of 2015. Also contributing to the increase in our benefit for credit losses in the first nine months of 2016 was a smaller 

negative impact resulting from the redesignation of loans from HFI to HFS compared with the first nine months of 2015.

The following factors contributed to our benefit for credit losses in each of the periods presented:

We recognized a benefit for credit losses in the third quarter of 2016 primarily due to an increase in home prices, including 

distressed property valuations. Higher home prices decrease the likelihood that loans will default and reduce the amount of 

credit loss on loans that do default, which impacts our estimate of losses and ultimately reduces our total loss reserves and 

provision for credit losses. 

We recognized a benefit for credit losses in the first nine months of 2016 due to higher home prices, including distressed 

property valuations, and a decline in interest rates. As interest rates decline, we expect an increase in future prepayments on 

single-family individually impaired loans, including modified loans. Higher expected prepayments shorten the expected lives 

of modified loans, which decreases the impairment relating to concessions provided on these loans and results in a decrease 

in the provision for credit losses.

We recognized a benefit for credit losses in the third quarter of 2015 primarily due to an increase in home prices and a 

decrease in interest rates. 

We recognized a benefit for credit losses in the first nine months of 2015 primarily due to an increase in home prices. 

Additionally, our benefit for credit losses in the first nine months of 2015 was impacted by the redesignation of certain 

nonperforming single-family loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of $5.3 billion from HFI to HFS. These loans 

were adjusted to the lower of cost or fair value, which partially offset our benefit for credit losses. Interest rates increased 

during the first nine months of 2015, which also partially offset our benefit for credit losses in the first nine months of 2015. 

As interest rates increase, we expect a decline in future prepayments on individually impaired loans, including modified 

loans. Lower expected prepayments lengthen the expected lives of modified loans, which increases the impairment related to 

concessions provided on these loans and results in an increase in the provision for credit losses. 

Our approach to the adoption of the charge-off provisions of the Advisory Bulletin on January 1, 2015 had no impact on the 

amount of benefit for credit losses that we recognized in the third quarter or first nine months of 2015.

We discuss our expectations regarding our future loss reserves in “Executive Summary—Outlook—Loss Reserves.”
24

Troubled Debt Restructurings and Nonaccrual Loans

Table 9 displays the composition of loans restructured in a troubled debt restructuring (“TDR”) that are on accrual status and 

loans on nonaccrual status. The table includes our recorded investment in HFI and HFS mortgage loans. For information on 

the impact of TDRs and other individually impaired loans on our allowance for loan losses, see “Note 3, Mortgage Loans.” 

Table 9: Troubled Debt Restructurings and Nonaccrual Loans

As of

September 30,

2016

December 31,

2015

(Dollars in millions)

TDRs on accrual status:

Single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 131,966 $140,588

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 230 376

Total TDRs on accrual status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 132,196 $140,964

Nonaccrual loans:

Single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 44,319 $ 48,821

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 498 591

Total nonaccrual loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 44,817 $ 49,412

Accruing on-balance sheet loans past due 90 days or more(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 414 $ 499

For the Nine Months

Ended September 30,

2016 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Interest related to on-balance sheet TDRs and nonaccrual loans:

Interest income forgone(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,312 $ 4,146

Interest income recognized for the period(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,565 4,876

__________

(1) Includes loans that, as of the end of each period, are 90 days or more past due and continuing to accrue interest. The majority of these 

amounts consists of loans insured or guaranteed by the U.S. government and loans for which we have recourse against the seller in the 

event of a default.

(2) Represents the amount of interest income we did not recognize, but would have recognized during the period for nonaccrual loans and 

TDRs on accrual status as of the end of each period had the loans performed according to their original contractual terms.

(3) Represents interest income recognized during the period, including the amortization of any deferred cost basis adjustments, for loans 

classified as either nonaccrual loans or TDRs on accrual status as of the end of each period. Includes primarily amounts accrued while 

the loans were performing and cash payments received on nonaccrual loans.

Foreclosed Property Expense

Foreclosed property expense decreased in the third quarter and first nine months of 2016 compared with the third quarter and 

first nine months of 2015 primarily due to a decline in the number of foreclosed properties and lower operating expenses 

relating to property tax and insurance costs on our single-family foreclosed properties.

Credit Loss Performance Metrics

Our credit-related income (expense) should be considered in conjunction with our credit loss performance metrics. Our credit 

loss performance metrics, however, are not defined terms within GAAP and may not be calculated in the same manner as 

similarly titled measures reported by other companies. Because management does not view changes in the fair value of our 

mortgage loans as credit losses, we adjust our credit loss performance metrics for the impact associated with our acquisition 

of credit-impaired loans from unconsolidated MBS trusts. We also exclude interest forgone on nonaccrual loans and TDRs, 

other-than-temporary impairment losses resulting from deterioration in the credit quality of our mortgage-related securities 

and accretion of interest income on acquired credit-impaired loans from credit losses. We believe that credit loss performance 

metrics may be useful to investors as the losses are presented as a percentage of our book of business and have historically 

been used by analysts, investors and other companies within the financial services industry. Moreover, by presenting credit 

losses with and without the effect of fair value losses associated with the acquisition of credit-impaired loans, investors are 
25

able to evaluate our credit performance on a more consistent basis among periods. Table 10 displays the components of our 

credit loss performance metrics as well as our single-family and multifamily initial charge-off severity rates. 

Table 10: Credit Loss Performance Metrics

For the Three Months Ended September 30, For the Nine Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015

Amount Ratio(1) Amount Ratio(1) Amount Ratio(1) Amount Ratio(1)

(Dollars in millions)

Charge-offs, net of recoveries. . . . . . . . $ 423 5.6 bps $ 551 7.2 bps $ 2,225 9.8 bps $ 3,600 15.8 bps

Adoption of Advisory Bulletin and 

change in accounting policy(2)

. . . . . . — — — — — — 3,555 15.6

Foreclosed property expense. . . . . . . . . 110 1.4 497 6.5 507 2.2 1,152 5.0

Credit losses including the effect of

fair value losses on acquired creditimpaired loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533 7.0 1,048 13.7 2,732 12.0 8,307 36.4

Plus: Impact of acquired creditimpaired loans on charge-offs and 

foreclosed property expense(3). . . . . 83 1.1 103 1.4 273 1.1 349 1.5

Credit losses and credit loss ratio . . . . . $ 616 8.1 bps $ 1,151 15.1 bps $ 3,005 13.1 bps $ 8,656 37.9 bps

Credit losses attributable to:

Single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 622 $ 1,168 $ 3,003 $ 8,650

Multifamily(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6) (17) 2 6

 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 616 $ 1,151 $ 3,005 $ 8,656

Single-family initial charge-off 

severity rate(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16.0 % 17.0 % 20.3 % 27.0 %

Multifamily initial charge-off severity 

rate(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.0 % 17.0 % 15.4 % 23.4 %

__________

(1) Basis points are based on the annualized amount for each line item presented divided by the average guaranty book of business during 

the period.

(2) Our charge-offs for 2015 include the initial charge-offs associated with our approach to adopting the charge-off provisions of the 

Advisory Bulletin, as well as charge-offs relating to a change in accounting policy for nonaccrual loans.

(3) Includes fair value losses from acquired credit-impaired loans. 

(4) Negative credit losses are the result of recoveries on previously charged-off amounts.

(5) Single-family and multifamily rates exclude fair value losses on credit-impaired loans acquired from MBS trusts and any costs, gains or 

losses associated with REO after initial acquisition through final disposition. The single-family rate includes charge-offs pursuant to the 

provisions of the Advisory Bulletin and charge-offs of property tax and insurance receivables, while it excludes charge-offs from short 

sales and third-party sales. Multifamily rate is net of risk-sharing agreements. 

Credit losses and our credit loss ratio decreased in the third quarter of 2016 compared with the third quarter of 2015 primarily 

due to lower foreclosed property expense and lower charge-offs. 

Credit losses and our credit loss ratio decreased in the first nine months of 2016 compared with the first nine months of 2015 

primarily due to our approach to adopting the charge-off provisions of the Advisory Bulletin and a change in our accounting 

policy for nonaccrual loans in the first quarter of 2015. Additionally, lower charge-offs in the first nine months of 2016 

compared with the first nine months of 2015 contributed to the decrease in our credit losses and credit loss ratio in the first 

nine months of 2016.

We discuss our expectations regarding our future credit losses in “Executive Summary—Outlook—Credit Losses.”
26

Table 11 displays concentrations of our single-family credit losses based on geography, credit characteristics and loan 

vintages.

Table 11: Credit Loss Concentration Analysis

Percentage of Single-Family Conventional 

Guaranty Book of Business Outstanding(1) Percentage of Single-Family Credit Losses(2)

As of For the Three Months

Ended September 30,

For the Nine Months

September 30, December 31, September 30, Ended September 30,

2016 2015 2015 2016 2015 2016 2015

Geographical Distribution:

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20% 20% 20% 1% 3% 1% 2%

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 6 4 10 7 23

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 4 18 14 18 21

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 5 11 11 20 16

All other states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 65 65 66 62 54 38

Select higher-risk product features(3)

. . 22 22 22 68 60 59 61

Vintages:(4)

2004 and prior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 6 13 13 16 10

2005 - 2008. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10 11 60 66 64 80

2009 - 2016. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 85 83 27 21 20 10

__________

(1) Calculated based on the unpaid principal balance of loans, where we have detailed loan-level information, for each category divided by 

the unpaid principal balance of our single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of the end of each period.

(2) Excludes the impact of recoveries resulting from resolution agreements related to representation and warranty matters and 

compensatory fee income related to servicing matters that have not been allocated to specific loans.

(3) Includes Alt-A loans, subprime loans, interest-only loans, loans with original LTV ratios greater than 90% and loans with FICO credit 

scores less than 620.

(4) Credit losses on mortgage loans typically do not peak until the third through sixth years following origination; however, this range can 

vary based on many factors, including changes in macroeconomic conditions and foreclosure timelines.

As shown in Table 11, the majority of our credit losses for the third quarter and first nine months of 2016 continued to be 

driven by loans originated in 2005 through 2008. Our credit losses in Florida, as well as credit losses on loans originated in 

2005 through 2008, were higher in the third quarter and first nine months of 2015 compared with the third quarter and first 

nine months of 2016 primarily because, pursuant to the revised charge-off policy we implemented in 2015, we charged off a 

portion of excessively delinquent loans in these states that related to these vintages and that remained in the foreclosure 

process. We provide more detailed single-family credit performance information, including serious delinquency rates share 

and foreclosure activity, in “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk 

Management.”

Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (“TCCA”) Fees

Pursuant to the TCCA, which was enacted by Congress in December 2011, FHFA directed us to increase our single-family 

guaranty fees by 10 basis points and remit this increase to Treasury. This TCCA-related revenue is included in “Net interest 

income” and the expense is recognized as “TCCA fees.” TCCA fees increased in the third quarter and first nine months of 

2016 compared with the third quarter and first nine months of 2015 as our book of business subject to the TCCA continued to 

grow. We expect the guaranty fees collected and expenses incurred under the TCCA to continue to increase in the future.
27

BUSINESS SEGMENT RESULTS

Results of our three business segments are intended to reflect each segment as if it were a stand-alone business. Under our 

segment reporting structure, the sum of the results for our three business segments does not equal our condensed consolidated 

results of operations as we separate the activity related to our consolidated trusts from the results generated by our three 

segments. In addition, because we apply accounting methods that differ from our condensed consolidated results for segment 

reporting purposes, we reconcile the activity related to our consolidated trusts and other differences to our condensed 

consolidated results of operations. We describe the management reporting and allocation process used to generate our 

segment results in “Note 12, Segment Reporting” in our 2015 Form 10-K.

In this section, we provide a comparative discussion of our segment results for the third quarter and first nine months of 2016

and 2015. This section should be read together with our comparative discussion in “Consolidated Results of Operations.” See 

“Note 11, Segment Reporting” for a reconciliation of our segment results to our condensed consolidated results.

Single-Family Business Results

Table 12 displays the financial results of our Single-Family business. For a discussion of single-family credit risk 

management, including information on serious delinquency rates and loan workouts, see “Risk Management—Credit Risk 

Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management.” The primary source of revenue for our Single-Family 

business is guaranty fee income. Expenses and other items that impact income or loss primarily include credit-related income 

(expense), TCCA fees and administrative expenses.
28

Table 12: Single-Family Business Results

For the Three Months Ended September 30, For the Nine Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015 Variance 2016 2015 Variance

(Dollars in millions)

Guaranty fee income(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,305 $ 3,145 $ 160 $ 9,787 $ 9,277 $ 510

Credit-related income (expense)(2)

. . . 531 1,029 (498) 2,894 (216) 3,110

TCCA fees(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (465) (413) (52) (1,358) (1,192) (166)

Other expenses(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (623) (682) 59 (1,809) (1,633) (176)

Income before federal income taxes . . 2,748 3,079 (331) 9,514 6,236 3,278

Provision for federal income taxes . . . (808) (1,040) 232 (2,544) (2,040) (504)

Net income attributable to Fannie

Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,940 $ 2,039 $ (99) $ 6,970 $ 4,196 $ 2,774

Other key performance data:

Securitization Activity/New Business

Single-family Fannie Mae MBS

issuances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 166,023 $ 126,144 $ 399,906 $ 368,112

Credit Guaranty Activity

Average single-family guaranty book 

of business(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,821,030 $ 2,831,133 $ 2,823,787 $ 2,838,129

Single-family effective guaranty fee

rate:

Total rate, net of TCCA fee (in 

basis points)(5)(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . 40.3 38.6 39.8 38.0

Total rate (in basis points)(5)

. . . . . . 46.9 44.4 46.2 43.6

Single-family average charged

guaranty fee on new acquisitions:

Total fee, net of TCCA fee (in 

basis points)(6)(7). . . . . . . . . . . . . 46.2 50.6 47.3 50.5

Total fee (in basis points)(7)

. . . . . . 56.2 60.6 57.3 60.5

Single-family serious delinquency 

rate, at end of period(8). . . . . . . . . . . 1.24 % 1.59 % 1.24 % 1.59 %

Market

Single-family mortgage debt 

outstanding, at end of period (total 

U.S. market)(9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10,054,973 $ 9,948,287 $10,054,973 $ 9,948,287

30-year mortgage rate, at end of 

period(10). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.42 % 3.86 % 3.42 % 3.86 %

__________

(1) Reflects the impact of a 10 basis point guaranty fee increase implemented in 2012 pursuant to the TCCA, the incremental revenue from 

which is remitted to Treasury. The resulting revenue is included in guaranty fee income and the expense is recognized as “TCCA fees.”

(2) Consists of the benefit for credit losses and foreclosed property expense.

(3) Consists of net interest income, investment gains, net, fair value losses, net, gains (losses) from partnership investments, fee and other 

income, administrative expenses and other expenses.

(4) Our single-family guaranty book of business consists of (a) single-family mortgage loans of Fannie Mae, (b) single-family mortgage 

loans underlying Fannie Mae MBS, and (c) other credit enhancements that we provide on single-family mortgage assets, such as longterm standby commitments. It excludes non-Fannie Mae mortgage-related securities held in our retained mortgage portfolio for which 

we do not provide a guaranty.

(5) Calculated based on annualized Single-Family segment guaranty fee income divided by the average single-family guaranty book of 

business.

(6) Excludes the impact of a 10 basis point guaranty fee increase implemented in 2012 pursuant to the TCCA, the incremental revenue 

from which is remitted to Treasury and not retained by us.

(7) Calculated based on the average contractual fee rate for our single-family guaranty arrangements entered into during the period plus the 

recognition of any upfront cash payments ratably over an estimated average life. 
29

(8) Calculated based on the number of single-family conventional loans that are 90 days or more past due or in the foreclosure process, 

divided by the number of loans in our single-family conventional guaranty book of business. 

(9) Information labeled as of September 30, 2016 is as of June 30, 2016 and is based on the Federal Reserve’s September 2016 mortgage 

debt outstanding release, the latest date for which the Federal Reserve has estimated mortgage debt outstanding for single-family 

residences. Prior period amounts have been changed to reflect revised historical data from the Federal Reserve.

(10) Based on Freddie Mac’s Primary Mortgage Market Survey rate for the last week in the period, which represents the national average 

mortgage commitment rate to a qualified borrower exclusive of any fees and points required by the lender.

Pre-tax income decreased in the third quarter of 2016 compared with the third quarter of 2015 primarily as a result of a 

decrease in credit-related income, partially offset by an increase in guaranty fee income. Pre-tax income increased in the first 

nine months of 2016 compared with the first nine months of 2015 primarily due to a shift to credit-related income from 

credit-related expense and higher guaranty fee income.

We recognized single-family credit-related income in the third quarter of 2016 and 2015. Credit-related income in the third

quarter of 2016 was driven by a benefit for credit losses during the quarter, which was primarily attributable to an increase in 

home prices, including distressed property valuations. Higher home prices decrease the likelihood that loans will default and 

reduce the amount of credit loss on loans that do default, which impacts our estimate of losses and ultimately reduces our 

total loss reserves and provision for credit losses. Credit-related income in the third quarter of 2015 was driven by a benefit 

for credit losses that was primarily attributable to an increase in home prices as well as a decrease in interest rates during the 

period. As interest rates decline, we expect an increase in future prepayments on single-family individually impaired loans, 

including modified loans. Higher expected prepayments shorten the expected lives of modified loans, which decreases the 

impairment relating to concessions provided on these loans and results in a decrease in our provision for credit losses.

We recognized single family credit-related income in the first nine months of 2016. In comparison, we recognized creditrelated expense in the first nine months of 2015. Credit-related income in the first nine months of 2016 was primarily 

attributable to a benefit for credit losses during the period, driven by an increase in home prices, including distressed property 

valuations, and a decrease in interest rates. Credit-related expense in the first nine months of 2015 was comprised of 

foreclosed property expense, partially offset by a benefit for credit losses. Foreclosed property expense in the first nine 

months of 2015 was primarily driven by property preservation costs, which include property tax and insurance expenses 

relating to our single-family foreclosed properties. The benefit for credit losses in the first nine months of 2015 was primarily 

driven by higher home prices. This was partially offset by the impact from the redesignation of certain nonperforming singlefamily loans from HFI to HFS. These loans were adjusted to the lower of cost or fair value, which reduced our benefit for 

credit losses. Additionally, interest rates increased during the first nine months of 2015, which also partially offset our benefit 

for credit losses. See “Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related Income (Expense)” for more information on the 

drivers of our credit-related income or expense. 

Guaranty fee income and our effective guaranty fee rate increased in the third quarter and first nine months of 2016 compared 

with the third quarter and first nine months of 2015 as loans with higher guaranty fees have become a larger part of our 

single-family guaranty book of business primarily due to the cumulative impact of guaranty fee price increases implemented 

in 2012.

Our single-family acquisition volume and single-family Fannie Mae MBS issuances increased in the third quarter of 2016

compared with the third quarter of 2015, driven primarily by an increase in refinances. Our single-family acquisition volume 

and single-family MBS issuances increased in the first nine months of 2016 compared with the first nine months of 2015, 

driven primarily by an increase in acquisitions of home purchase mortgage loans. The increase in acquisition volumes in the 

first nine months of 2016 compared with the first nine months of 2015 was partially offset by an increase in liquidations of 

loans from our single-family guaranty book of business. Accordingly, the size of our single-family guaranty book of business 

remained relatively flat.

Multifamily Business Results

Multifamily business results primarily reflect our multifamily guaranty business. Our Multifamily business results also 

include activity relating to our low-income housing tax credit (“LIHTC”) investments and equity investments. Although we 

are not currently making new LIHTC or equity investments, we continue to make contractually required contributions for our 

legacy investments. Activity from multifamily products is also reflected in the Capital Markets group results, which include 

net interest income related to multifamily loans and securities held in our retained mortgage portfolio, gains and losses from 

the sale of multifamily Fannie Mae MBS, mortgage loans and re-securitizations, and other miscellaneous income.
30

Table 13 displays the financial results of our Multifamily business. The primary sources of revenue for our Multifamily 

business are guaranty fee income and fee and other income, which includes yield maintenance income. Other items that affect 

income or loss primarily include credit-related income (expense), gains on partnership investments, and administrative 

expenses.

Table 13: Multifamily Business Results

For the Three Months Ended

September 30,

For the Nine Months Ended

September 30,

2016 2015 Variance 2016 2015 Variance

(Dollars in millions)

Guaranty fee income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 431 $ 367 $ 64 $ 1,216 $ 1,064 $ 152

Fee and other income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 58 (9) 156 193 (37)

Gains from partnership investments(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 (2) 45 262 (217)

Credit-related income(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 24 8 57 114 (57)

Other expenses(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (93) (115) 22 (300) (332) 32

Income before federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 424 341 83 1,174 1,301 (127)

Provision for federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (49) (17) (32) (127) (128) 1

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 375 $ 324 $ 51 $ 1,047 $ 1,173 $ (126)

Other key performance data:

Securitization Activity/New Business

Multifamily new business volume(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 17,864 $ 7,295 $ 40,666 $ 32,291

Multifamily units financed from new business

volume . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240,000 118,000 542,000 433,000

Multifamily Fannie Mae MBS issuances(5)

. . . . . . . . . $ 17,884 $ 7,484 $ 40,618 $ 33,881

Multifamily Fannie Mae structured securities

issuances (issued by Capital Markets group) . . . . . . $ 2,067 $ 2,016 $ 7,651 $ 8,467

Multifamily Fannie Mae MBS outstanding, at end of 

period(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $214,387 $184,028 $214,387 $184,028

Credit Guaranty Activity

Average multifamily guaranty book of business(7)

. . . . $230,717 $212,654 $223,897 $208,828

Multifamily effective guaranty fee rate (in basis 

points)(8). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74.7 69.0 72.4 67.9

Multifamily credit loss ratio (in basis points)(9)

. . . . . . (1.0) (3.2) 0.1 0.4

Multifamily serious delinquency rate, at end of

period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.07 % 0.05 % 0.07 % 0.05 %

Percentage of multifamily guaranty book of business

with lender risk-sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93 % 91 % 93 % 91 %

Fannie Mae percentage of total multifamily mortgage 

debt outstanding, at end of period(10). . . . . . . . . . . . 19 % 19 % 19 % 19 %

Portfolio Data

Average Fannie Mae multifamily mortgage loans and 

Fannie Mae MBS in Capital Markets group’s 

portfolio(11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 19,823 $ 31,036 $ 21,725 $ 35,321

Additional net interest income and yield maintenance 

income earned on Fannie Mae multifamily 

mortgage loans and MBS (included in Capital 

Markets group’s results)(12)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 78 $ 181 $ 265 $ 573

__________

(1) Gains from partnership investments are included in other expenses in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and 

comprehensive income. Gains from partnership investments are reported using the equity method of accounting. As a result, net income 

attributable to noncontrolling interest from partnership investments is not included in income for the Multifamily segment.

(2) Consists of the benefit for credit losses and foreclosed property expense (income).
31

(3) Consists of net interest income (loss), investment gains (losses), net, administrative expenses and other expenses.

(4) Reflects unpaid principal balance of multifamily Fannie Mae MBS issued (excluding portfolio securitizations), multifamily loans 

purchased, and credit enhancements provided during the period.

(5) Reflects unpaid principal balance of multifamily Fannie Mae MBS issued during the period. Includes (a) issuances of new MBS as a 

result of lender swap transactions; (b) Fannie Mae portfolio securitization transactions of which we had none for the three and nine 

months ended September 30, 2016, and $189 million and $1.6 billion for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015; and (c) 

conversions of adjustable-rate loans to fixed-rate loans of $118 million and $4 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 

and 2015, respectively; and no conversions for the three months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015; and (d) MBS reissuances of $19 

million for the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, $56 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 and no

reissuances for the three months ended September 30, 2015.

(6) Includes $8.4 billion and $13.8 billion of Fannie Mae multifamily MBS held in our retained mortgage portfolio, the vast majority of 

which have been consolidated to loans in our condensed consolidated balance sheets, as of September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively.

(7) Our multifamily guaranty book of business consists of (a) multifamily mortgage loans of Fannie Mae, (b) multifamily mortgage loans 

underlying Fannie Mae MBS, and (c) other credit enhancements that we provide on multifamily mortgage assets. It excludes nonFannie Mae mortgage-related securities held in our retained mortgage portfolio for which we do not provide a guaranty.

(8) Calculated based on annualized Multifamily segment guaranty fee income divided by the average multifamily guaranty book of 

business.

(9) Calculated based on annualized Multifamily segment credit losses divided by the average multifamily guaranty book of business. 

Negative credit losses are the result of recoveries on previously charged-off amounts. 

(10) Includes mortgage loans and Fannie Mae MBS guaranteed by the Multifamily segment. Information labeled as of September 30, 2016

is as of June 30, 2016 and is based on the Federal Reserve’s September 2016 mortgage debt outstanding release, the latest date for 

which the Federal Reserve has estimated mortgage debt outstanding for multifamily residences. Prior period amounts may have been 

changed to reflect revised historical data from the Federal Reserve.

(11) Based on unpaid principal balance.

(12) Interest expense estimate is based on allocated duration-matched funding costs. Net interest income was reduced by guaranty fees 

allocated to Multifamily from the Capital Markets group on multifamily loans in our retained mortgage portfolio. Yield maintenance 

income represents the investor portion of fees earned as a result of prepayments of multifamily loans and MBS in our retained mortgage 

portfolio. A portion of yield maintenance income is reported in Multifamily business results to the extent attributable to our multifamily 

guaranty business.

Pre-tax income increased in the third quarter of 2016 compared with the third quarter of 2015 primarily as a result of an 

increase in guaranty fee income. Pre-tax income decreased in the first nine months of 2016 compared with the first nine 

months of 2015 primarily as a result of decreases in gains from partnership investments, credit-related income and fee and 

other income, partially offset by an increase in guaranty fee income.

Guaranty fee income increased in the third quarter and first nine months of 2016 compared with the third quarter and first 

nine months of 2015 as loans with higher guaranty fees have become a larger part of our multifamily guaranty book of 

business, while loans with lower guaranty fees continued to liquidate.

Fee and other income decreased in the first nine months of 2016 compared with the first nine months of 2015 primarily due 

to a decrease in yield maintenance income as a result of lower prepayment volumes in the first nine months of 2016.

Gains from partnership investments decreased in the first nine months of 2016 compared with the first nine months of 2015

as the number of our multifamily partnership investments continued to decline.

Credit-related income decreased in the first nine months of 2016 compared with the first nine months of 2015 primarily 

driven by a lower benefit from the reduction in the allowance for loan losses. 

FHFA’s 2016 conservatorship scorecard includes an objective to maintain the dollar volume of new multifamily business at or 

below $36.5 billion, excluding certain targeted business segments. On August 18, 2016, FHFA announced an increase in the 

2016 multifamily lending caps for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from $35 billion to $36.5 billion. Approximately 66% of 

Fannie Mae’s multifamily new business volume of $40.7 billion for the first nine months of 2016 counted towards FHFA’s 

2016 multifamily volume cap. 

Capital Markets Group Results

Table 14 displays the financial results of our Capital Markets group. Following the table we discuss the Capital Markets 

group’s financial results and describe the Capital Markets group’s retained mortgage portfolio. For a discussion of the debt 

issued by the Capital Markets group to fund its investment activities, see “Liquidity and Capital Management.” For a 

discussion of the derivative instruments that the Capital Markets group uses to manage interest rate risk, see “MD&A—Risk 

Management—Market Risk Management, Including Interest Rate Risk Management” in our 2015 Form 10-K and “Note 9, 
32

Derivative Instruments” in this report and our 2015 Form 10-K. The primary source of revenue for our Capital Markets group 

is net interest income. Other items that impact income or loss primarily include fair value gains and losses, investment gains 

and losses, as well as allocated guaranty fee expense and administrative expenses.

Table 14: Capital Markets Group Results

For the Three Months Ended September 30, For the Nine Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015 Variance 2016 2015 Variance

(Dollars in millions)

Net interest income(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,049 $ 1,401 $ (352) $ 3,221 $ 4,516 $ (1,295)

Investment gains, net(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,232 1,608 624 5,735 4,679 1,056

Fair value losses, net(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (530) (2,697) 2,167 (5,063) (2,112) (2,951)

Fee and other income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 83 (14) 121 288 (167)

Other expenses(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (331) (405) 74 (969) (1,163) 194

Income (loss) before federal income taxes . . 2,489 (10) 2,499 3,045 6,208 (3,163)

Provision for federal income taxes . . . . . . . . (670) (13) (657) (804) (1,982) 1,178

Net income (loss) attributable to Fannie Mae $ 1,819 $ (23) $ 1,842 $ 2,241 $ 4,226 $ (1,985)

__________

(1) Includes contractual interest income, excluding recoveries, on nonaccrual loans received from the Single-Family segment of $421 

million and $480 million for the three months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and $1.4 billion and $1.6 billion for 

the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively. The Capital Markets group’s net interest income is reported based 

on the mortgage-related assets held in the segment’s retained mortgage portfolio and excludes interest income on mortgage-related 

assets held by consolidated MBS trusts that are owned by third parties and the interest expense on the corresponding debt of such trusts.

(2) We include the securities that we own regardless of whether the trust has been consolidated in reporting of gains and losses on 

securitizations and sales of available-for-sale securities.

(3) Includes fair value losses on derivatives and fair value gains on trading securities that we own regardless of whether the trust has been 

consolidated.

(4) Includes allocated guaranty fee expense, administrative expenses, and other expenses.

Pre-tax income increased in the third quarter of 2016 compared with the third quarter of 2015 primarily due to a decrease in 

fair value losses and an increase in investment gains, partially offset by a decrease in net interest income. Pre-tax income 

decreased in the first nine months of 2016 compared with the first nine months of 2015 primarily due to an increase in fair 

value losses and a decrease in net interest income, partially offset by an increase in investment gains. 

Fair value losses in the third quarter of 2016 were primarily driven by losses on CAS debt carried at fair value primarily due 

to tightening spreads between CAS debt yields and LIBOR during the period. Fair value losses in the first nine months of 

2016 were primarily due to fair value losses on our risk management derivatives. The fair value losses that are reported for 

the Capital Markets group are consistent with the amounts reported in our condensed consolidated statements of operations 

and comprehensive income, which we discuss in “Consolidated Results of Operations—Fair Value Losses, Net.”

The decrease in net interest income in the third quarter and first nine months of 2016 compared with the third quarter and first 

nine months of 2015 was primarily due to a decline in the average balance of our retained mortgage portfolio as we continued 

to reduce this portfolio pursuant to the requirements of our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury and 

FHFA’s additional portfolio cap.

Investment gains increased in the third quarter and first nine months of 2016 compared with the third quarter and first nine 

months of 2015 primarily due to higher gains recognized on the sale of AFS securities as a result of an increase in sales 

volume and higher prices in the third quarter and first nine months of 2016. 

We supplement our issuance of debt securities with derivative instruments to further reduce interest rate risk. The effect of 

these derivatives, in particular the periodic net interest expense accruals on interest rate swaps, is not reflected in the Capital 

Markets group’s net interest income but is included in our results as a component of “Fair value losses, net” and is displayed 

in “Table 6: Fair Value Losses, Net.”
33

The Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio

The Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio, which we also refer to as our retained mortgage portfolio, consists of 

mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities that we own. Mortgage-related securities held by the Capital Markets group 

include Fannie Mae MBS and non-Fannie Mae mortgage-related securities. The Fannie Mae MBS that we own are 

maintained as securities on the Capital Markets group’s balance sheets. The portion of assets held by consolidated MBS trusts 

that back mortgage-related securities owned by third parties are not included in the Capital Markets group’s mortgage 

portfolio.

The amount of mortgage assets that we may own is restricted by our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with 

Treasury. By December 31 of each year, we are required to reduce our mortgage assets to 85% 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 in 2018. Under the agreement, the maximum allowable amount of mortgage assets 

we are permitted to own as of December 31, 2016 is $339.3 billion. 

In 2014, FHFA requested that we submit a revised portfolio plan outlining how we will reduce the portfolio each year to 90% 

of the annual limit under our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. FHFA’s request noted that we may 

seek FHFA permission to increase this cap up to 95% of the annual limit under our senior preferred stock purchase agreement 

with Treasury upon written request and with a documented basis for exception, such as changed market conditions. 

Accordingly, under our revised portfolio plan, we plan to reduce our retained mortgage portfolio to no more than $305.4 

billion as of December 31, 2016, in compliance with both our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury and 

FHFA’s request.

In the third quarter of 2016, we began to securitize reperforming loans held in our retained mortgage portfolio into Fannie 

Mae MBS, and also began to sell Fannie Mae MBS backed by reperforming loans. Reperforming loans are mortgage loans 

on which the borrower had previously been delinquent but subsequently became current, either with or without a 

modification. Our securitization and sale of Fannie Mae MBS backed by reperforming loans provides us with more flexibility 

to manage our risk and reduce the size of our portfolio. In addition, in October 2016, we announced our first offer to sell 

reperforming whole loans as part of our ongoing effort to reduce the size of our retained mortgage portfolio. 

As we continue to reduce the size of our retained mortgage portfolio, our revenues generated by our retained mortgage 

portfolio will continue to decrease. As of September 30, 2016, we owned $306.5 billion in mortgage assets, compared with 

$345.1 billion as of December 31, 2015. For additional information on the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase 

agreement with Treasury, see “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements—Treasury Agreements” in our 2015 

Form 10-K.
34

Table 15 displays our Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio activity based on unpaid principal balance.

Table 15: Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio Activity

For the Three Months For the Nine Months

Ended September 30, Ended September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Mortgage loans:

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 242,661 $ 270,809 $ 253,592 $ 285,610

Purchases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74,331 52,118 177,794 158,126

Securitizations(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (71,396) (50,357) (164,062) (148,743)

Sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,633) (1,888) (3,991) (2,521)

Liquidations(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9,973) (10,694) (29,343) (32,484)

Mortgage loans, ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233,990 259,988 233,990 259,988

Mortgage securities:

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73,616 119,498 91,511 127,703

Purchases(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,782 15,588 49,632 36,786

Securitizations(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,396 50,357 164,062 148,743

Sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (88,992) (69,466) (222,576) (186,498)

Liquidations(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,255) (5,515) (10,082) (16,272)

Mortgage securities, ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72,547 110,462 72,547 110,462

Total Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 306,537 $ 370,450 $ 306,537 $ 370,450

__________

(1) Includes portfolio securitization transactions that do not qualify for sale treatment under GAAP.

(2) Includes scheduled repayments, prepayments, foreclosures, and lender repurchases. 

(3) Includes purchases of Fannie Mae MBS issued by consolidated trusts.

Table 16 displays the composition of the unpaid principal balance of our Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio and our 

assessment of the liquidity of these assets. Our assessment is based on the liquidity within the markets in which the assets are 

traded, the issuers of the assets and the nature of the collateral underlying the assets. Our unsecuritized mortgage loans, 

private-label mortgage-related securities (“PLS”) and other non-agency securities are considered less liquid. Fannie Mae 

securities that are collateralized by non-agency mortgage-related securities are also considered to be less liquid.
35

Table 16: Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio Composition

As of

September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

More

Liquid

Less

Liquid Total

More

Liquid

Less

Liquid Total

(Dollars in millions)

Mortgage loans:

Single-family loans:

Government insured or guaranteed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ — $ 30,799 $ 30,799 $ — $ 33,376 $ 33,376

Conventional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 192,337 192,337 — 206,851 206,851

Total single-family loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 223,136 223,136 — 240,227 240,227

Multifamily loans:

Government insured or guaranteed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 210 210 — 224 224

Conventional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 10,644 10,644 — 13,141 13,141

Total multifamily loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 10,854 10,854 — 13,365 13,365

Total mortgage loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 233,990 233,990 — 253,592 253,592

Mortgage-related securities:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,037 10,982 60,019 57,185 11,512 68,697

Freddie Mac. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,293 — 1,293 5,232 — 5,232

Ginnie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,376 — 1,376 748 — 748

Alt-A private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 2,057 2,057 — 3,481 3,481

Subprime private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 3,217 3,217 — 5,212 5,212

Commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) . — 2,231 2,231 — 3,515 3,515

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,824 1,824 — 3,105 3,105

Other mortgage-related securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 530 530 — 1,521 1,521

Total mortgage-related securities(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,706 20,841 72,547 63,165 28,346 91,511

Total Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio . . . . . . $ 51,706 $254,831 $306,537 $ 63,165 $281,938 $345,103

__________

(1) The fair value of these mortgage-related securities was $76.2 billion and $96.0 billion as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 

2015, respectively.

Our Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio decreased as of September 30, 2016 compared with December 31, 2015, as 

we continued to reduce the size of our retained mortgage portfolio. The overall portfolio decrease was driven by sales and 

liquidations outpacing purchases.

The loans we purchased in the first nine months of 2016 included $8.5 billion in delinquent loans we purchased 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 factors, including 

the limit on the amount of mortgage assets that we may own pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement and 

FHFA’s portfolio plan requirements. Table 17 displays the composition of loans restructured in a TDR that were on accrual 

status, loans on nonaccrual status and all other mortgage-related assets in our Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio.
36

Table 17: Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio

As of

September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Percent of

Total

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Percent of

Total

(Dollars in millions)

TDRs on accrual status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 127,766 42% $ 137,117 40%

Nonaccrual loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,617 13 47,000 13

All other mortgage-related assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138,154 45 160,986 47

Total Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 306,537 100% $ 345,103 100%

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET ANALYSIS

This section provides a discussion of our condensed consolidated balance sheets and should be read together with our 

condensed consolidated financial statements, including the accompanying notes. 

Table 18: Summary of Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets

As of

September 30,

2016

December 31,

2015 Variance

(Dollars in millions)

Assets

Cash and cash equivalents and federal funds sold and securities purchased under

agreements to resell or similar arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 44,909 $ 42,024 $ 2,885

Restricted cash. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,926 30,879 12,047

Investments in securities(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,412 60,138 (9,726)

Mortgage loans:

Of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220,355 238,397 (18,042)

Of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,851,312 2,809,198 42,114

Allowance for loan losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22,706) (27,951) 5,245

Mortgage loans, net of allowance for loan losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,048,961 3,019,644 29,317

Deferred tax assets, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,101 37,187 (2,086)

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,633 32,045 1,588

Total assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,255,942 $ 3,221,917 $ 34,025

Liabilities and equity

Debt:

Of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 351,568 $ 386,135 $ (34,567)

Of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,881,545 2,811,536 70,009

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,653 20,187 (1,534)

Total liabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,251,766 3,217,858 33,908

Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,176 4,059 117

Total liabilities and equity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,255,942 $ 3,221,917 $ 34,025

__________

(1) Includes $31.3 billion as of September 30, 2016 and $29.5 billion as of December 31, 2015 of U.S. Treasury securities that are included 

in our other investments portfolio, which we present in “Table 22: Cash and Other Investments Portfolio.”
37

Cash and Other Investments Portfolio

Our cash and other investments portfolio consists of cash and cash equivalents, securities purchased under agreements to 

resell or similar arrangements, and investments in U.S. Treasury securities. See “Liquidity and Capital Management—

Liquidity Management—Cash and Other Investments Portfolio” for additional information on our cash and other investments 

portfolio.

Restricted Cash

Restricted cash primarily includes unscheduled borrower payments received by servicers of loans backing consolidated trusts 

due to be remitted to the MBS certificateholders in the subsequent month. Our restricted cash increased as of September 30, 

2016 compared with the balance as of December 31, 2015 primarily as a result of an increase in prepayments received on 

mortgage loans in September 2016 compared with prepayments received in December 2015.

Investments in Mortgage-Related Securities

Our investments in mortgage-related securities are classified in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as either trading or 

available-for-sale and are measured at fair value. Table 19 displays the fair value of our investments in mortgage-related 

securities, including trading and available-for-sale securities. We classify private-label securities as Alt-A, subprime or 

commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) if the securities were labeled as such when issued. We have also invested 

in subprime private-label securities that we have resecuritized to include our guaranty.

Table 19: Summary of Mortgage-Related Securities at Fair Value

As of

September 30,

2016

December 31,

2015

(Dollars in millions)

Mortgage-related securities:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 7,643 $ 9,034

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,390 5,613

Ginnie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,454 817

Alt-A private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,730 3,114

Subprime private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,272 3,925

CMBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,259 3,596

Mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,916 3,150

Other mortgage-related securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471 1,404

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 19,135 $ 30,653

The decrease in mortgage-related securities at fair value from December 31, 2015 to September 30, 2016 was primarily 

driven by sales and liquidations.

Mortgage Loans

The increase in mortgage loans from December 31, 2015 to September 30, 2016 was primarily due to acquisitions outpacing 

liquidations. For additional information on our mortgage loans, see “Note 3, Mortgage Loans.” For additional information on 

our mortgage loan purchase and sale activities, see “Business Segment Results—Capital Markets Group Results.” 

The decrease in our allowance for loan losses from December 31, 2015 to September 30, 2016 was primarily driven by 

increases in home prices, declines in actual and projected interest rates, liquidations of mortgage loans and charge-offs which 

relieved the allowance on these loans. See “Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related Income (Expense)” for more 

information.

Debt

Debt of Fannie Mae is the primary means of funding our mortgage investments. The decrease in debt of Fannie Mae from 

December 31, 2015 to September 30, 2016 was primarily driven by lower funding needs, as our retained mortgage portfolio 

decreased. We provide a summary of the activity of the debt of Fannie Mae and a comparison of the mix between our 

outstanding short-term and long-term debt in “Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity Management—Debt Funding.” 

Also see “Note 8, Short-Term Borrowings and Long-Term Debt” for additional information on our outstanding debt.
38

Debt of consolidated trusts represents the amount of Fannie Mae MBS issued from consolidated trusts and held by third-party 

certificateholders. The increase in debt of consolidated trusts from December 31, 2015 to September 30, 2016 was primarily 

driven by sales of Fannie Mae MBS, which are accounted for as reissuances of debt of consolidated trusts in our condensed 

consolidated balance sheets, since the MBS certificate ownership is transferred from us to a third party.

Stockholders’ Equity

Our equity increased as of September 30, 2016 compared with December 31, 2015 due to our comprehensive income 

recognized during the first nine months of 2016, offset by our payments of senior preferred stock dividends to Treasury 

during the first nine months of 2016.

LIQUIDITY AND CAPITAL MANAGEMENT

Liquidity Management

Our business activities require that we maintain adequate liquidity to fund our operations. Our liquidity risk management 

framework is designed to address our liquidity risk. Liquidity risk is the risk that we will not be able to meet our funding 

obligations in a timely manner. Liquidity risk management involves forecasting funding requirements, maintaining sufficient 

capacity to meet our needs based on our ongoing assessment of financial market liquidity and adhering to our regulatory 

requirements.

Our treasury group is responsible for implementing our liquidity and contingency planning strategies. We hold a portfolio of 

highly liquid investments and maintain access to alternative sources of liquidity which are designed to provide near term 

availability of cash in the event that our access to the debt markets becomes limited. While our liquidity contingency 

planning attempts to address stressed market conditions, we believe that our liquidity contingency plan may be difficult or 

impossible to execute for a company of our size and in our circumstances.

Our liquidity position could be adversely affected by many factors, both internal and external to our business, including: 

actions taken by FHFA, the Federal Reserve, Treasury or other government agencies; legislation relating to us or our 

business; a U.S. government payment default on its debt obligations; a downgrade in the credit ratings of our senior 

unsecured debt or the U.S. government’s debt from the major ratings organizations; a systemic event leading to the 

withdrawal of liquidity from the market; an extreme market-wide widening of credit spreads; public statements by key policy 

makers; a significant decline in our net worth; potential investor concerns about the adequacy of funding available to us 

under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement; loss of demand for our debt, or certain types of our debt, from a major 

group of investors; a significant credit event involving one of our major institutional counterparties; a sudden catastrophic 

operational failure in the financial sector; or elimination of our GSE status.

This section supplements and updates information regarding liquidity risk management contained in our 2015 Form 10-K. 

See “MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity Management” and “Risk Factors” in our 2015 Form 10-K for 

additional information, including discussions of our primary sources and uses of funds, our liquidity risk management 

practices and liquidity contingency planning, factors that influence our debt funding activity, factors that may impact our 

access to or the cost of our debt funding, and factors that could adversely affect our liquidity.

Debt Funding

We fund our business primarily through the issuance of short-term and long-term debt securities in the domestic and 

international capital markets. Because debt issuance is our primary funding source, we are subject to “roll over,” or 

refinancing, risk on our outstanding debt.

Our debt funding needs and debt funding activity may vary from quarter to quarter depending on market conditions and are 

influenced by anticipated liquidity needs, the size of our retained mortgage portfolio and our dividend payment obligations to 

Treasury. See “Business Segment Results—Capital Markets Group Results—The Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage 

Portfolio” for information about our retained mortgage portfolio, our requirement to reduce the size of our retained mortgage 

portfolio and our portfolio reduction plan.
39

Fannie Mae Debt Funding Activity

Table 20 displays the activity in debt of Fannie Mae. This activity excludes the debt of consolidated trusts and intraday loans. 

Activity for short-term debt of Fannie Mae relates to borrowings with an original contractual maturity of one year or less 

while activity for long-term debt of Fannie Mae relates to borrowings with an original contractual maturity of greater than 

one year. The reported amounts of debt issued and paid off during the period represent the face amount of the debt at issuance 

and redemption. The increase in our issuances and payoffs of short-term debt during the first nine months of 2016 compared 

with the first nine months of 2015 was driven by our utilization of short-term notes with overnight maturities in the first nine 

months of 2016. The increase in our issuances of long-term debt during the third quarter and first nine months of 2016 

compared with the third quarter and first nine months of 2015 was primarily driven by the issuance of debt to fund higher 

redemptions of callable debt due to lower interest rates. 

Table 20: Activity in Debt of Fannie Mae

For the Three Months 

Ended September 30,

For the Nine Months

Ended September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Issued during the period:

Short-term:

Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 142,937 $ 60,880 $ 419,822 $ 156,658

Weighted-average interest rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.23% 0.19% 0.25% 0.14%

Long-term:(1)

Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 48,853 $ 14,486 $ 100,505 $ 47,727

Weighted-average interest rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.42% 1.24% 1.58% 1.50%

Total issued:

Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 191,790 $ 75,366 $ 520,327 $ 204,385

Weighted-average interest rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.54% 0.39% 0.51% 0.46%

Paid off during the period:(2)

Short-term:

Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 152,088 $ 46,660 $ 439,408 $ 166,148

Weighted-average interest rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.31% 0.11% 0.28% 0.09%

Long-term:

Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 51,211 $ 36,293 $ 116,657 $ 81,723

Weighted-average interest rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.92% 1.25% 2.01% 1.29%

Total paid off:

Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 203,299 $ 82,953 $ 556,065 $ 247,871

Weighted-average interest rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.71% 0.61% 0.64% 0.48%

__________

(1) Includes credit risk-sharing securities issued under our CAS series. For additional information on our credit risk-sharing transactions, 

see “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management—Transfer of Mortgage Credit 

Risk—Credit Risk-Sharing Transactions.”

(2) Consists of all payments on debt, including regularly scheduled principal payments, payments at maturity, payments resulting from 

calls and payments for any other repurchases. Repurchases of debt and early retirements of zero-coupon debt are reported at original 

face value, which does not equal the amount of actual cash payment.

Outstanding Debt

Total outstanding debt of Fannie Mae includes short-term and long-term debt, excluding debt of consolidated trusts. Shortterm debt of Fannie Mae consists of borrowings with an original contractual maturity of one year or less and, therefore, does 

not include the current portion of long-term debt. Long-term debt of Fannie Mae consists of borrowings with an original 

contractual maturity of greater than one year.
40

Our outstanding short-term debt, based on its original contractual maturity, as a percentage of our total outstanding debt, was 

15% as of September 30, 2016, compared with 18% as of December 31, 2015. The weighted-average interest rate on our 

long-term debt, based on its original contractual maturity, decreased to 2.28% as of September 30, 2016 from 2.41% as of 

December 31, 2015.

Our outstanding debt maturing within one year, including the current portion of our long-term debt and amounts we have 

announced for early redemption, as a percentage of our total outstanding debt, excluding debt of consolidated trusts, was 33%

as of September 30, 2016 and 32% as of December 31, 2015. The weighted-average maturity of our outstanding debt that is 

maturing within one year was 143 days as of September 30, 2016, compared with 125 days as of December 31, 2015. The 

weighted-average maturity of our outstanding debt maturing in more than one year was approximately 54 months as of 

September 30, 2016, compared with approximately 57 months as of December 31, 2015. 

We intend to repay our short-term and long-term debt obligations as they become due primarily through proceeds from the 

issuance of additional debt securities. We also may use proceeds from our mortgage assets to pay our debt obligations.

Pursuant to the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, we are prohibited from issuing debt without the prior 

consent of Treasury if it would result in our aggregate indebtedness exceeding our outstanding debt limit, which is 120% of 

the amount of mortgage assets we were allowed to own under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement on December 31 

of the immediately preceding calendar year. Our debt limit under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement was reduced 

to $479.0 billion in 2016. As of September 30, 2016, our aggregate indebtedness totaled $353.6 billion, which was $125.4 

billion below our debt limit. The calculation of our indebtedness for purposes of complying with our debt limit reflects the 

unpaid principal balance and excludes debt basis adjustments and debt of consolidated trusts. Because of our debt limit, we 

may be restricted in the amount of debt we issue to fund our operations.
41

Table 21 displays information on our outstanding short-term and long-term debt based on its original contractual terms.

Table 21: Outstanding Short-Term Borrowings and Long-Term Debt(1)

As of

September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

Maturities Outstanding

WeightedAverage

Interest

Rate Maturities Outstanding

WeightedAverage

Interest

Rate

(Dollars in millions)

Federal funds purchased and securities sold 

under agreements to repurchase(2). . . . . . . . — $ 35 —% — $ 62 —%

Short-term debt:

Debt of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — $ 51,442 0.44% — $ 71,007 0.26%

Debt of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . . . — 612 0.46 — 943 0.19

Total short-term debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52,054 0.44% $ 71,950 0.26%

Long-term debt:

Senior fixed:

Benchmark notes and bonds . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2030 $ 153,481 2.23% 2016 - 2030 $ 154,057 2.49%

Medium-term notes(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2026 83,661 1.39 2016 - 2025 96,997 1.53

Other(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2017 - 2038 13,557 6.58 2016 - 2038 27,772 4.88

Total senior fixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,699 2.19 278,826 2.39

Senior floating:

Medium-term notes(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2019 28,715 0.59 2016 - 2019 20,791 0.27

Connecticut Avenue Securities(5)

. . . . . . 2023 - 2029 15,636 4.59 2023 - 2028 10,764 3.84

Other(6)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2020 - 2037 419 6.65 2020 - 2037 368 10.46

Total senior floating . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,770 2.01 31,923 1.58

Subordinated debentures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2019 4,537 9.93 2019 4,227 9.93

Secured borrowings(7)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2021 - 2022 120 1.42 2021 - 2022 152 1.47

Total long-term debt of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . 300,126 2.28 315,128 2.41

Debt of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2054 2,880,933 2.53 2016 - 2054 2,810,593 2.94

Total long-term debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,181,059 2.51% $ 3,125,721 2.88%

Outstanding callable debt of Fannie Mae(8)

. . . $ 80,622 1.81% $ 96,199 1.92%

__________

(1) Outstanding debt amounts and weighted-average interest rates reported in this table include the effects of discounts, premiums and 

other cost basis adjustments. Reported outstanding amounts include fair value gains and losses associated with debt that we elected to 

carry at fair value. Reported amounts for total debt of Fannie Mae include unamortized discounts and premiums, other cost basis 

adjustments and fair value adjustments of $2.0 billion and $3.2 billion as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. 

(2) Represents agreements to repurchase securities for a specified price, with repayment generally occurring on the following day. 

(3) Includes long-term debt with an original contractual maturity of greater than 1 year and up to 10 years, excluding zero-coupon debt.

(4) Includes other long-term debt and foreign exchange bonds.

(5) Credit risk-sharing securities that transfer a portion of the credit risk on specified pools of mortgage loans in our single-family guaranty 

book of business to the investors in these securities, a portion of which is reported at fair value. For additional information on our credit 

risk-sharing transactions, see “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management—

Transfer of Mortgage Credit Risk—Credit Risk-Sharing Transactions.”

(6) Consists of structured debt instruments that are reported at fair value.

(7) Represents remaining liability resulting from the transfer of financial assets from our condensed consolidated balance sheets that did 

not qualify as a sale.

(8) Consists of the unpaid principal balance of long-term callable debt of Fannie Mae that can be paid off in whole or in part at our option 

at any time on or after a specified date.
42

Cash and Other Investments Portfolio

Table 22 displays information on the composition of our cash and other investments portfolio. The balance of our cash and 

other investments portfolio fluctuates based on changes in our cash flows, liquidity in the fixed income markets and our 

liquidity risk management framework and practices. See “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Institutional 

Counterparty Credit Risk Management—Counterparty Credit Exposure of Investments Held in our Cash and Other 

Investments Portfolio” for additional information on the risks associated with the assets in our cash and other investments 

portfolio.

Table 22: Cash and Other Investments Portfolio

As of

September 30,

2016

December 31,

2015

(Dollars in millions)

Cash and cash equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 26,559 $ 14,674

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell or similar arrangements . 18,350 27,350

U.S. Treasury securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,277 29,485

Total cash and other investments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 76,186 $ 71,509

Credit Ratings

As of September 30, 2016, our credit ratings have not changed since we filed our 2015 Form 10-K. For additional 

information on our credit ratings, see “MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management—Credit Ratings” in our 2015 Form 10-

K.

Cash Flows

Nine Months Ended September 30, 2016. Cash and cash equivalents increased by $11.9 billion from $14.7 billion as of 

December 31, 2015 to $26.6 billion as of September 30, 2016. The increase was primarily driven by cash inflows from (1) 

the sale of Fannie Mae MBS to third parties, (2) proceeds from repayments and sales of loans of Fannie Mae and (3) 

proceeds from the sale and liquidation of mortgage-related securities.

Partially offsetting these cash inflows were cash outflows from (1) the redemption of funding debt, which outpaced issuances 

due to lower funding needs, (2) the acquisition of delinquent loans out of MBS trusts and (3) the payment of dividends to 

Treasury under our senior preferred stock purchase agreement.

Nine Months Ended September 30, 2015. Cash and cash equivalents decreased by $2.1 billion from $22.0 billion as of 

December 31, 2014 to $19.9 billion as of September 30, 2015. The decrease was primarily driven by cash outflows from (1) 

the redemption of funding debt, which outpaced issuances due to lower funding needs, (2) the acquisition of delinquent loans 

out of MBS trusts and (3) the payment of dividends to Treasury under our senior preferred stock purchase agreement.

Partially offsetting these cash outflows were cash inflows from (1) proceeds from repayments and sales of loans of Fannie 

Mae, (2) the sale of Fannie Mae MBS to third parties, (3) the sale of our acquired property and (4) proceeds from the sale and 

liquidation of mortgage-related securities.

Capital Management

Regulatory Capital

FHFA stated that, during conservatorship, our existing statutory and FHFA-directed regulatory capital requirements will not 

be binding and FHFA will not issue quarterly capital classifications. The deficit of our core capital over statutory minimum 

capital was $138.9 billion as of September 30, 2016 and $139.7 billion as of December 31, 2015. For more information on 

our minimum capital requirements, see “Note 14, Regulatory Capital Requirements” in our 2015 Form 10-K.

Capital Activity

The Director of FHFA has directed us to make dividend payments on the senior preferred stock on a quarterly basis. Our third 

quarter 2016 dividend of $2.9 billion was declared by FHFA and subsequently paid by us on September 30, 2016. Based on 

the terms of the senior preferred stock, we expect to pay Treasury a dividend for the fourth quarter of 2016 of $3.0 billion by 

December 31, 2016. 
43

The terms of our senior preferred stock provide for dividends to accrue at a rate equal to our net worth less a capital reserve 

amount, which continues to decrease annually. The capital reserve amount is $1.2 billion for dividend periods in 2016, and 

will continue to be reduced by $600 million each year until it reaches zero on January 1, 2018.

We are effectively unable to raise equity capital from private sources at this time and, therefore, are reliant on the funding 

available under our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury to address any net worth deficit. Under the 

senior preferred stock purchase agreement, Treasury made a commitment to provide funding, under certain conditions, to 

eliminate deficiencies in our net worth. We have received a total of $116.1 billion from Treasury pursuant to the senior 

preferred stock purchase agreement as of September 30, 2016. The current aggregate liquidation preference of the senior 

preferred stock, including the initial aggregate liquidation preference of $1.0 billion, remains at $117.1 billion. 

While we had a positive net worth as of September 30, 2016 and have not received funds from Treasury under the agreement 

since the first quarter of 2012, we will be required to obtain additional funding from Treasury pursuant to the senior preferred 

stock purchase agreement if we have a net worth deficit in future periods. As of the date of this filing, the amount of 

remaining available funding under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement is $117.6 billion. If we were to draw 

additional funds from Treasury under the agreement in a future period, the amount of remaining funding under the agreement 

would be reduced by the amount of our draw. Dividend payments we make to Treasury do not restore or increase the amount 

of funding available to us under the agreement.

See “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements—Treasury Agreements” in our 2015 Form 10-K for more 

information on the terms of the senior preferred stock and our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. See 

“Risk Factors” in our 2015 Form 10-K for a discussion of the risks relating to our dividend obligations to Treasury on the 

senior preferred stock. See “Risk Factors” in this report for a discussion of how changes in accounting standards could have a 

material adverse effect on our financial results or net worth. 

OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

Our maximum potential exposure to credit losses relating to our outstanding and unconsolidated Fannie Mae MBS and other 

financial guarantees is primarily represented by the unpaid principal balance of the mortgage loans underlying outstanding 

and unconsolidated Fannie Mae MBS and other financial guarantees of $25.1 billion as of September 30, 2016 and $27.5 

billion as of December 31, 2015.

For a description of our off-balance sheet arrangements, see “MD&A—Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements” in our 2015 Form 

10-K.

RISK MANAGEMENT

Our business activities expose us to the following three major categories of risk: credit risk, market risk (including interest 

rate and liquidity risk) and operational risk. We seek to actively monitor and manage these risks by using an established risk 

management framework. In addition to our exposure to credit, market and operational risks, there is significant uncertainty 

regarding the future of our company, including how long we will continue to be in existence, which we discuss in more detail 

in “Risk Factors” in this report and in “Business—Housing Finance Reform” in our 2015 Form 10-K. This uncertainty, along 

with limitations on our employee compensation arising from our conservatorship, could adversely affect our ability to retain 

and hire qualified employees. 

We are also subject to a number of other risks that could adversely impact our business, financial condition and earnings 

including human capital, model, legal, regulatory and compliance, reputational, technological and cybersecurity, strategic and 

execution risks. These risks may arise due to a failure to comply with laws, regulations or ethical standards and codes of 

conduct applicable to our business activities and functions.

In this section we provide an update on our management of our major risk categories. For a more complete discussion of the 

primary risks we face and how we manage credit risk, market risk and operational risk, see “MD&A—Risk Management” in 

our 2015 Form 10-K and “Risk Factors” in this report and our 2015 Form 10-K. 

Credit Risk Management

We are generally subject to two types of credit risk: mortgage credit risk and institutional counterparty credit risk. Mortgage 

credit risk is the risk that a borrower will fail to make required mortgage payments. Institutional counterparty credit risk is the 

risk that our institutional counterparties may fail to fulfill their contractual obligations to us.
44

Mortgage Credit Risk Management

We are exposed to credit risk on our mortgage credit book of business because we either hold mortgage assets, have issued a 

guaranty in connection with the creation of Fannie Mae MBS backed by mortgage assets or provided other credit 

enhancements on mortgage assets. While our mortgage credit book of business includes all of our mortgage-related assets, 

both on- and off-balance sheet, our guaranty book of business excludes non-Fannie Mae mortgage-related securities held in 

our retained mortgage portfolio for which we do not provide a guaranty. We provide information on the performance of nonFannie Mae mortgage-related securities held in our retained mortgage portfolio, including the impairment that we have 

recognized on these securities, in “Note 5, Investments in Securities.”

Mortgage Credit Book of Business

Table 23 displays the composition of our mortgage credit book of business based on unpaid principal balance. Our singlefamily mortgage credit book of business accounted for 92% of our mortgage credit book of business as of September 30, 

2016 and 93% of our mortgage credit book of business as of December 31, 2015. 

Table 23: Composition of Mortgage Credit Book of Business

As of

September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

SingleFamily Multifamily TotalSingleFamily Multifamily Total

(Dollars in millions)

Mortgage loans and Fannie Mae MBS(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,812,206 $ 221,859 $ 3,034,065 $ 2,817,251 $ 198,342 $ 3,015,593

Unconsolidated Fannie Mae MBS, held by third 

parties(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,429 1,204 9,633 9,818 1,226 11,044

Other credit guarantees(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,305 13,164 15,469 2,652 13,852 16,504

Guaranty book of business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,822,940 $ 236,227 $ 3,059,167 $ 2,829,721 $ 213,420 $ 3,043,141

Agency mortgage-related securities(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,669 — 2,669 5,973 7 5,980

Other mortgage-related securities(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,901 3,958 9,859 10,365 6,469 16,834

Mortgage credit book of business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,831,510 $ 240,185 $ 3,071,695 $ 2,846,059 $ 219,896 $ 3,065,955

Guaranty Book of Business Detail:

Conventional Guaranty Book of Business(6)

. . . . . . $ 2,775,839 $ 234,818 $ 3,010,657 $ 2,778,254 $ 211,975 $ 2,990,229

Government Guaranty Book of Business(7)

. . . . . . . $ 47,101 $ 1,409 $ 48,510 $ 51,467 $ 1,445 $ 52,912

__________

(1) Consists of mortgage loans and Fannie Mae MBS recognized in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. The principal balance of 

resecuritized Fannie Mae MBS is included only once in the reported amount.

(2) The principal balance of resecuritized Fannie Mae MBS is included only once in the reported amount.

(3) Consists of single-family and multifamily credit enhancements that we have provided and that are not otherwise reflected in the table.

(4) Consists of mortgage-related securities issued by Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae.

(5) Primarily includes mortgage revenue bonds, Alt-A and subprime PLS and CMBS.

(6) Consists of mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities that are not guaranteed or insured, in whole or in part, by the U.S. 

government or one of its agencies.

(7) Consists of mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities guaranteed or insured, in whole or in part, by the U.S. government or one of 

its agencies. 

The GSE Act requires us to set aside each year an amount equal to 4.2 basis points for each dollar of the unpaid principal 

balance of our total new business purchases and to pay this amount to specified U.S. Department of Housing and Urban 

Development and Treasury funds. New business purchases consist of single-family and multifamily whole mortgage loans 

purchased during the period and single-family and multifamily mortgage loans underlying Fannie Mae MBS issued during 

the period pursuant to lender swaps. In February 2016, we paid $217 million to the funds based on our new business 

purchases in 2015. Our new business purchases were $444.5 billion in the first nine months of 2016. Accordingly, we 

recognized an expense of $187 million related to this obligation for the first nine months of 2016. We expect to pay this 

amount, plus additional amounts to be accrued based on our new business purchases in the last three months of 2016, to the 

funds in February 2017. See “Business—Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities—The GSE Act—Affordable Housing 

Allocations” in our 2015 Form 10-K for more information regarding this obligation.
45

In the following sections, we discuss the mortgage credit risk of the single-family and multifamily loans in our guaranty book 

of business. The credit statistics reported below, unless otherwise noted, pertain generally to the portion of our guaranty book 

of business for which we have access to detailed loan-level information, which constituted approximately 99% of each of our 

single-family conventional guaranty book of business and our multifamily guaranty book of business, excluding defeased 

loans, as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. We typically obtain this data from the sellers or servicers of the 

mortgage loans in our guaranty book of business and receive representations and warranties from them as to the accuracy of 

the information. While we perform various quality assurance checks by sampling loans to assess compliance with our 

underwriting and eligibility criteria, we do not independently verify all reported information and we rely on lender 

representations regarding the accuracy of the characteristics of loans in our guaranty book of business. See “Risk Factors” in 

our 2015 Form 10-K for a discussion of the risk that we could experience mortgage fraud as a result of this reliance on lender 

representations.

Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management

Our strategy in managing single-family mortgage credit risk consists of five primary components: (1) our acquisition and 

servicing policies along with our underwriting and servicing standards; (2) the transfer of credit risk through risk-sharing 

transactions and the use of credit enhancements; (3) portfolio diversification and monitoring; (4) management of problem 

loans; and (5) REO management. We provide information on our credit-related income and credit losses in “Consolidated 

Results of Operations—Credit-Related Income (Expense).” For information on how we evaluate and factors that affect our 

single-family mortgage credit risk, see “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage 

Credit Risk Management” in our 2015 Form 10-K. 

The single-family credit statistics we focus on and report in the sections below generally relate to our single-family 

conventional guaranty book of business, which represents the substantial majority of our total single-family guaranty book of 

business. We provide information on non-Fannie Mae mortgage-related securities held in our portfolio in “Note 5, 

Investments in Securities.”

Single-Family Acquisition and Servicing Policies and Underwriting and Servicing Standards

Our Single-Family business, with the oversight of our Enterprise Risk Management division, is responsible for pricing and 

managing credit risk relating to the portion of our single-family mortgage credit book of business consisting of single-family 

mortgage loans and Fannie Mae MBS backed by single-family mortgage loans (whether held in our portfolio or held by third 

parties). Desktop Underwriter, our proprietary automated underwriting system which measures credit risk by assessing the 

primary risk factors of a mortgage, is used to evaluate the majority of the loans we purchase or securitize. We periodically 

update Desktop Underwriter to reflect changes to both our underwriting and eligibility guidelines and our Selling Guide, 

which sets forth our policies and procedures related to selling single-family mortgages to us.

We initiated underwriting and eligibility changes that became effective for deliveries in late 2008 and 2009 and that focused 

on strengthening our underwriting and eligibility standards to promote sustainable homeownership. The result of many of 

these changes is reflected in the substantially improved risk profile of our single-family loan acquisitions since 2009.

In 2016, we continued to implement a number of changes to Desktop Underwriter designed to help originate mortgages with 

increased certainty, efficiency and lower costs, including making new verification tools available to lenders. As part of our 

most recent update in September 2016, we incorporated trended credit data into Desktop Underwriter. Trended credit data 

refers to additional historical information on a borrower’s use of revolving credit accounts, including the balance, scheduled 

payments and actual payments made on these accounts. Incorporating trended credit data is expected to improve the accuracy 

of Desktop Underwriter’s credit risk assessment and benefit borrowers who regularly pay down their revolving debt. The 

September 2016 update to Desktop Underwriter also added the ability to underwrite loans where the borrower does not have 

a credit score, automating what was previously a manual process for lenders.

We also began offering third-party validation of borrower income data through Desktop Underwriter in October 2016, and 

plan to expand this validation service to borrower asset and employment data in December 2016. We also plan to update 

Desktop Underwriter and our Selling Guide in December 2016 to offer a property inspection waiver for certain refinance 

transactions that meet specified eligibility criteria, including a requirement that a prior appraisal for the subject property 

associated with one of the borrowers for the refinance must already be in Fannie Mae’s Uniform Collateral Data Portal®. The 

majority of our loan acquisitions will continue to require an appraisal to establish market value.
46

Table 24 below displays information regarding the credit characteristics of the loans in our single-family conventional 

guaranty book of business by acquisition period. For additional information on HARP and other Refi Plus loans, see “Credit 

Profile Summary—HARP and Refi Plus Loans.”

Table 24: Selected Credit Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Guaranty Book of Business, by Acquisition 

Period

As of September 30, 2016

% of SingleFamily 

Conventional 

Guaranty Book 

of Business(1)

Current 

Estimated Markto-Market LTV

Ratio(2)

Current 

Estimated Markto-Market LTV

Ratio>100%(3)

Serious 

Delinquency 

Rate(4)

2009-2016 acquisitions, excluding HARP and other Refi

Plus loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 % 58 % * % 0.23 %

HARP loans(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 76 10 1.10

Other Refi Plus loans(6)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 45 * 0.39

2005-2008 acquisitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 72 13 6.31

2004 and prior acquisitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 43 1 2.77

Total single-family conventional guaranty book of

business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 59 % 2 % 1.24 %

__________

* Represents less than 0.5%

(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 September 30, 2016.

(2) The aggregate estimated mark-to-market LTV ratio is based on the unpaid principal balance of the loans as of the end of the period 

divided by the estimated current value of the properties, which we calculate using an internal valuation model that estimates periodic 

changes in home value. Excludes loans for which this information is not readily available.

(3) The current estimated mark-to-market LTV ratio greater than 100% is based on the unpaid principal balance of the loans with mark-tomarket LTV ratios greater than 100% for each category as of the end of the period divided by the aggregate unpaid principal balance of 

loans for each category in our single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of September 30, 2016.

(4) 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 September 30, 2016 serious delinquency rates of loans acquired in 2005 through 2008. 

(5) HARP loans, which we began to acquire in 2009, have LTV ratios at origination in excess of 80%.

(6) Other Refi Plus loans, which we began to acquire in 2009, includes all other Refi Plus loans that are not HARP loans.

Beginning with loans delivered in 2013, and in conjunction with our representation and warranty framework described below, 

we have made changes in our quality control process that move the primary focus of our quality control review from the time 

a loan defaults to shortly after the loan is delivered to us. We have implemented new tools to help identify loans delivered to 

us that may not have met our underwriting or eligibility guidelines and use these tools to help select discretionary samples of 

performing loans for quality control review shortly after delivery. We also select random samples of performing loans for 

quality control review shortly after delivery. Our quality control includes reviewing and recording underwriting defects noted 

in the file and determining if the loan met our underwriting and eligibility guidelines. We also use these reviews to provide 

lenders with earlier feedback on underwriting defects.

We derive an eligibility defect rate from our random reviews, which represents the proportion of loans in the sample 

population with underwriting defects that would make them potentially ineligible for delivery to us. The eligibility defect rate 

does not necessarily indicate how well the loans will ultimately perform. Instead, we use the eligibility defect rate to estimate 

the percentage of loans we acquired that potentially had a significant error in the underwriting process. As of September 30, 

2016, the eligibility defect rate for our single-family non-Refi Plus loan acquisitions made during the twelve months ended 

January 2016 was 0.61%. We continue to work with lenders to reduce the number of defects.

If we determine that a mortgage loan did not meet our underwriting or eligibility requirements, loan representations or 

warranties were violated or a mortgage insurer rescinded coverage, then our mortgage sellers and/or servicers are obligated to 

either repurchase the loan or foreclosed property, reimburse us for our losses or provide other remedies, unless the loan is 

eligible for representation and warranty relief under our representation and warranty framework described below. We 

collectively refer to our demands that mortgage sellers and servicers meet these obligations as repurchase requests. The 

unpaid principal balance of single-family loans that are subject to a repurchase request has declined significantly since we 
47

strengthened our underwriting standards in late 2008 and 2009, implemented changes to our quality control process in 2013 

and implemented our representation and warranty framework described below. As of September 30, 2016, we had issued 

repurchase requests on approximately 0.18% of the $464 billion of unpaid principal balance of single-family loans delivered 

to us during the twelve months ended February 2016.

Our total outstanding repurchase requests as of September 30, 2016 were $257 million, compared with $696 million as of 

December 31, 2015. The dollar amounts of our outstanding repurchase requests are based on the unpaid principal balance of 

the loans underlying the repurchase request, not the actual amount we have requested from the lenders. In some cases, we 

allow lenders to remit payment equal to our loss, including imputed interest, on the loan after we have disposed of the related 

REO, which may be substantially less than the unpaid principal balance of the loan. As a result, we expect our actual cash 

receipts relating to these outstanding repurchase requests to be significantly lower than the unpaid principal balance of the 

loans. Amounts relating to repurchase requests originating from missing documentation or loan files where a full file review 

could not be completed are excluded from the total requests outstanding until we receive the missing documentation or loan 

files and a full underwriting review is completed. If we are unable to resolve our repurchase requests, either through 

collection or additional remedies, we will not recover the losses we have recognized on the associated loans.

Representation and Warranty Framework

Our representation and warranty framework for single-family mortgage loans delivered on or after January 1, 2013 seeks to 

provide lenders a higher degree of certainty and clarity regarding their repurchase exposure and liability on future deliveries, 

as well as consistency around repurchase timelines and remedies. Under the framework, lenders are relieved of underwritingrelated repurchase liability for loans that meet specific requirements. For example, a lender would not be required to 

repurchase a mortgage loan in breach of certain underwriting and eligibility representations and warranties if the borrower 

has made timely payments for 36 months following the delivery date (or, for Refi Plus loans, including HARP loans, for 12 

months following the delivery date), and the loan meets other specified eligibility requirements. For single-family loans 

delivered on or after July 1, 2014, the 36-month timely payment history requirement was relaxed to permit two instances of 

30-day delinquency and to add an alternative path to relief if there is a satisfactory conclusion of a full-file quality control 

review. Certain representations and warranties are “life of loan” representations and warranties, meaning that no relief from 

their enforcement is available to lenders regardless of the number of payments made by a borrower or the successful 

completion of a full-file quality control review. Examples of life of loan representations and warranties include, but are not 

limited to, a lender’s representation and warranty that it has originated the loan in compliance with applicable laws and that 

the loan conforms to our charter requirements. 

We have continued to revise and clarify lenders’ representation and warranty obligations to us. For example, in October 2016, 

we announced the following expansion of the representation and warranty relief we offer to lenders:

• Borrower data: When lenders use our data validation service available through Desktop Underwriter, we will 

provide relief from repurchase obligations relating to borrower data that has been validated by Desktop Underwriter.

• Appraised property value: We will offer lenders relief from repurchase obligations with respect to appraised 

property value for one-unit single-family loans we acquire through Desktop Underwriter if the appraisal provided in 

connection with the loan received a qualifying Collateral Underwriter risk score. Collateral Underwriter is an 

appraisal review tool we made available to lenders at no cost beginning in January 2015. 

• Property inspection waiver: For lenders that exercise the property inspection waiver option available on certain 

eligible refinance transactions and pay the related fee, we will waive representations and warranties with respect to 

property value, condition and marketability.

We implemented representation and warranty relief for borrower income data in October 2016. We plan to implement 

representation and warranty relief with respect to borrower asset and employment data and appraised property value, as well 

as property inspection waivers, in December 2016.

We believe the changes we have made to lenders’ representation and warranty obligations, as well as to our quality control 

process as described above, have significantly reduced uncertainty surrounding lenders’ repurchase risk relating to loans they 

deliver to us. We continue to work with FHFA to identify opportunities to provide lenders with more certainty and 

transparency regarding selling representation and warranty obligations.

As of September 30, 2016, approximately 45% of the outstanding loans in our single-family conventional guaranty book of 

business were acquired under the representation and warranty framework we implemented in 2013, compared with 38% as of 

December 31, 2015. Table 25 below displays information regarding the relief status of single-family conventional loans, 

based on payment history or the satisfactory conclusion of a quality control review, delivered to us under the representation 

and warranty framework we implemented in 2013. 
48

Table 25: Representation and Warranty Status of Single-Family Conventional Loans Acquired in 2013-2016

As of September 30, 2016

Refi Plus Non-Refi Plus Total

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Number of

Loans

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Number of

Loans

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Number of

Loans

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family conventional loans that:

Obtained relief. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 170,066 1,204,052 $ 324,268 1,641,368 $ 494,334 2,845,420

Remain eligible for relief . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,995 171,070 962,560 4,599,258 988,555 4,770,328

Are not eligible for relief . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,122 27,115 11,131 59,847 15,253 86,962

Total outstanding loans acquired since

January 1, 2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 200,183 1,402,237 $ 1,297,959 6,300,473 $ 1,498,142 7,702,710

As of September 30, 2016, approximately 37% of loans acquired under the representation and warranty framework had 

obtained relief, compared with 19% as of December 31, 2015. The increase in the percentage of loans that have obtained 

repurchase relief in the first nine months of 2016 was driven by the large number of non-Refi Plus single-family loans 

purchased in the first nine months of 2013 that have now received representation and warranty relief by meeting the 36-

month timely payment history requirement. Providing lenders with relief from repurchasing loans for breaches of certain 

representations and warranties on loans acquired beginning in 2013 that meet specified eligibility requirements shifts some of 

the risk of non-compliance with our requirements back to us. However, we believe that we have taken appropriate steps to 

mitigate this risk, including moving the primary focus of our quality control reviews to shortly after the time the loans are 

delivered to us. We also retain the right to review any defaulted loans that were not previously reviewed and have not 

obtained relief, in addition to retaining the right to review all loans for any violations of life of loan representations and 

warranties. 

Transfer of Mortgage Credit Risk

Credit Risk-Sharing Transactions

Our Single-Family business has developed risk-sharing capabilities to transfer portions of our single-family mortgage credit 

risk to the private market. The goal of these transactions is, to the extent economically sensible, to transfer a portion of the 

existing mortgage credit risk on a portion of recently acquired loans in our single-family guaranty book of business in order 

to reduce the economic risk to us and to taxpayers of future borrower defaults. In exchange for taking on a portion of the 

mortgage credit risk on these loans, we pay investors a premium that effectively reduces the guaranty fee income we earn on 

the loans. Our primary method of achieving this objective has been through CAS and CIRT transactions. As of September 30, 

2016, $594.0 billion in outstanding unpaid principal balance of our single-family loans, or approximately 21% of the loans in 

our single-family conventional guaranty book of business measured by unpaid principal balance were included in a reference 

pool for a CAS or CIRT transaction. We have also executed other types of risk-sharing transactions in addition to our CAS 

and CIRT transactions. During the first nine months of 2016, we transferred a significant portion of the mortgage credit risk 

on single-family mortgages with an unpaid principal balance of over $250 billion at the time of the transactions.

We generally include approximately half of our recent single-family acquisitions in credit risk transfer transactions, as we 

only target certain types of loan categories for credit risk transfer transactions. Loan categories we have targeted for credit 

risk transfer transactions generally consist of fixed-rate 30-year single-family conventional loans that meet certain credit 

performance characteristics, are non-Refi Plus and have LTV ratios between 60% and 97%. These targeted loan categories 

constituted over half of our loan acquisitions for the twelve months ended October 2015, and over 95% of the loans in these 

categories that we acquired in the twelve months ended October 2015 were included in a subsequent credit risk transfer 

transaction. Loans are included in reference pools for credit risk transfer transactions on a lagged basis; typically, about six 

months to one year after we initially acquire the loans. The portion of our single-family loan acquisitions we include in credit 

risk transfer transactions can vary from period to period based on market conditions and other factors. 

In a CAS transaction, we transfer to investors a portion of the mortgage credit risk associated with losses on a reference pool 

of mortgage loans. We create a reference pool consisting of recently acquired single-family mortgage loans included in our 

guaranty book of business. We then create a hypothetical securitization structure with notional credit risk positions, or 

tranches (that is, first loss, mezzanine and senior) and issue CAS debt related to the first loss and mezzanine risk positions. 

CAS debt is generally issued with a stated final maturity date of either 10 or 12.5 years from issuance, after which the CAS 
49

debt provides no further credit protection with respect to the remaining loans in the reference pool underlying that CAS 

transaction. 

Credit losses on the loans in the reference pool for a CAS transaction are first applied to reduce the outstanding principal 

balance of the first loss tranche. If credit losses on these loans exceed the outstanding principal balance of the first loss 

tranche, losses would then be applied to reduce the outstanding principal balance of the mezzanine loss tranche. Because we 

retain the senior loss tranche in CAS transactions, we would absorb any losses that exceed the outstanding principal balance 

of both the first loss and mezzanine loss tranches. The credit protection that is provided by the first loss and mezzanine loss 

tranches is expected to absorb all of the losses we estimate would be incurred on these loans in a stressed credit environment, 

such as a severe or prolonged economic downturn. Our initial CAS transactions sold only a portion of the mezzanine loss 

tranche to investors. We began to sell a portion of the first loss tranche to investors in 2016. Table 26 below identifies the loss 

positions we have transferred to investors in CAS and CIRT transactions.

Beginning in 2016, we recognize CAS debt we issue to investors at amortized cost as “Debt of Fannie Mae” in our condensed 

consolidated balance sheets. CAS debt we issued prior to 2016 is recognized at fair value as “Debt of Fannie Mae” in our 

condensed consolidated balance sheets. The principal balance of CAS debt decreases as a result of credit losses on loans in 

the related reference pool. These write downs of the principal balance reduce the total amount of payments we are obligated 

to make to investors on the CAS debt. We have recognized minimal credit losses on the loans in reference pools underlying 

CAS issuances to date primarily because the loans were acquired in recent years, after we implemented improvements in our 

credit underwriting practices, and because recent macroeconomic factors such as unemployment rates and home prices have 

been favorable.

CIRT deals are insurance transactions whereby we obtain actual loss coverage on pools of loans either directly from an 

insurance provider that retains the risk, or from an insurance provider that simultaneously cedes all of its risk to one or more 

reinsurers. CIRT deals are structured so that we retain an aggregate amount of initial losses on the loans in the pool, typically 

0.5% of the pool unpaid principal balance at the effective date of the coverage, before the insurance layer, typically 2.5% of 

the pool unpaid principal balance at the effective date of the coverage, attaches. We currently retain the risk of any remaining 

losses above the insurance layer. The insurance layer typically provides coverage for losses on the pool that are likely to 

occur only in a stressed economic environment. Insurance benefits are received after the underlying property has been 

liquidated and all applicable proceeds, including private mortgage insurance benefits, have been applied to the loss. CIRT

transactions completed to date have been written for ten-year terms. A portion of the insurers’ or reinsurers’ obligations is 

collateralized with highly-rated liquid assets held in a trust account. The required amount of collateral is initially determined 

according to the ratings of such insurer or reinsurer. There are contractual provisions that require additional collateral to be 

posted in the event of adverse developments with the counterparty, such as a ratings downgrade. We make premium payments 

on CIRT deals that we recognize in “Other expenses, net” in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and 

comprehensive income.
50

Table 26 displays the mortgage credit risk transferred to third parties and retained by Fannie Mae pursuant to our singlefamily CAS and CIRT transactions. 

Table 26: Credit Risk Transferred Pursuant to CAS and CIRT Transactions

At Issuance

As of

September 30,

Retained by Fannie Mae 2016

Credit Risk 

Transferred to Third 

Parties(1)

First

Loss

Position

Mezzanine

Loss

Position

Senior

Loss

Position

First

Loss

Position

Mezzanine

Loss

Position

Total 

Initial 

Reference 

Pool(2)

Total 

Outstanding 

Reference

Pool(1)(2)

(Dollars in millions)

CAS issuances:

First nine months of 2016. . . . . . . . $ 1,331 $ 271 $176,694 $ 509 $ 5,157 $ 183,962 $ 173,309

2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,058 312 181,282 — 5,921 188,573 140,127

2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845 355 215,175 — 5,849 222,224 171,075

2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 47 25,954 — 675 26,756 19,494

Total CAS issuances . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,314 $ 985 $599,105 $ 509 $ 17,602 $ 621,515 $ 504,005

CIRT transactions:

First nine months of 2016. . . . . . . . $ 310 $ 60,196 $ 1,551 $ 62,057 $ 55,816

2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202 39,104 1,008 40,314 30,429

2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6,195 192 6,419 3,745

Total CIRT transactions. . . . . . . . . . . $ 544 $105,495 $ 2,751 $ 108,790 $ 89,990

Total CAS and CIRT transactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 730,305 $ 593,995

Total outstanding reference pool as a percentage of single-family conventional guaranty book of business. 21.4 %

__________

(1) Includes $18.0 billion outstanding for the loss tranches transferred to third parties as of September 30, 2016.

(2) For CIRT transactions, “reference pool” reflects a pool of covered loans. 

In October 2016, we announced a new pilot front-end CIRT transaction. In contrast to our previous CIRT transactions, in 

which we obtained credit risk transfer insurance coverage on single-family loans we had previously acquired, in this frontend CIRT structure, the insurance coverage is committed prior to our acquisition of the covered loans and therefore is 

effective as soon as the loans are acquired. This pilot transaction will shift a portion of the credit risk on pools of singlefamily loans to a group of affiliates of our mortgage insurer counterparties. We plan to continue to offer our traditional CIRT

transactions that cover existing single-family loans in our portfolio.

We intend to continue to engage in regular CAS and CIRT transactions on an ongoing basis, subject to market conditions. 

FHFA’s 2016 conservatorship scorecard noted that, because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s single-family credit risk transfers 

have evolved into a core business practice, it is FHFA’s current expectation that single-family credit risk transfers will 

continue to be an ongoing conservatorship requirement. Accordingly, FHFA’s 2016 conservatorship scorecard includes 

several objectives relating to our single-family credit risk transfer transactions. 

Although we have designed our CAS and CIRT transactions to mitigate some of our potential future credit losses, they are 

not designed to shield us from all losses because, as shown in Table 26 above, we retain a portion of the risk of future credit 

losses on loans covered by CAS and CIRT transactions, including all or at least half of the first loss positions and all of the 

senior loss positions. We have structured the transactions this way because we believe the cost of transferring most of the first 

loss and the senior loss positions generally exceeds the benefit we would receive from such transfers. In addition, the credit 

risk transfer market is relatively new, and it is uncertain if there will be adequate demand for these products over the long 

term to meet our goals for these transactions.

Single-Family Portfolio Diversification and Monitoring

Diversification within our single-family mortgage credit book of business by product type, loan characteristics and geography 

is an important factor that influences credit quality and performance and may reduce our credit risk. We monitor various loan 

attributes, in conjunction with housing market and economic conditions, to determine if our pricing, eligibility and 
51

underwriting criteria accurately reflect the risk associated with loans we acquire or guarantee. In some cases, we may decide 

to significantly reduce our participation in riskier loan product categories. We also review the payment performance of loans 

in order to help identify potential problem loans early in the delinquency cycle and to guide the development of our loss 

mitigation strategies. For additional information on key loan attributes, see “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk 

Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Portfolio Diversification and Monitoring” 

in our 2015 Form 10-K.

Table 27 displays our single-family conventional business volumes and our single-family conventional guaranty book of 

business, based on certain key risk characteristics that we use to evaluate the risk profile and credit quality of our singlefamily loans. 
52

Table 27: Risk Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Business Volume and Guaranty Book of Business(1)

Percent of Single-Family Conventional Business Volume(2) Percent of Single-Family

Conventional Guaranty Book of

Business(3)(4)

As of

For the Three Months Ended

September 30,

For the Nine Months Ended

September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015

September 30,

2016

December 31,

2015

Original LTV ratio:(5)

<= 60%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 % 17 % 19 % 18 % 21 % 21 %

60.01% to 70%. . . . . . . . . . . 14 13 14 14 14 14

70.01% to 80%. . . . . . . . . . . 38 40 39 40 38 38

80.01% to 90%(6). . . . . . . . . 12 13 12 12 11 11

90.01% to 100%(6). . . . . . . . 15 16 16 15 12 12

100.01% to 125%(6). . . . . . . * 1 * 1 3 3

Greater than 125%(6). . . . . . * * * * 1 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Weighted average . . . . . . 74 % 76 % 74 % 75 % 75 % 75 %

Average loan amount. . . . . . . . . $ 232,225 $ 217,604 $ 228,183 $ 220,840 $ 162,015 $ 160,741

Estimated mark-to-market LTV

ratio:(7)

<= 60%. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 % 46 %

60.01% to 70%. . . . . . . . . . . 19 19

70.01% to 80%. . . . . . . . . . . 17 17

80.01% to 90%. . . . . . . . . . . 9 10

90.01% to 100%. . . . . . . . . . 4 5

100.01% to 125% . . . . . . . . . 2 2

Greater than 125% . . . . . . . . * 1

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 %

Weighted-average . . . . . . 59 % 62 %

Product type:

Fixed-rate:(8)

Long-term . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 % 81 % 81 % 81 % 77 % 76 %

Intermediate-term . . . . . . 17 16 17 17 17 17

Interest-only . . . . . . . . . . — — — — * *

Total fixed-rate . . . . . . 98 97 98 98 94 93

Adjustable-rate:

Interest-only . . . . . . . . . . — — — — 1 2

Other ARMs . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 2 2 5 5

Total adjustable-rate . . 2 3 2 2 6 7

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Number of property units:

1 unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 % 97 % 98 % 97 % 97 % 97 %

2-4 units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 2 3 3 3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Property type:

Single-family homes . . . . . . 91 % 90 % 90 % 90 % 91 % 91 %

Condo/Co-op . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 10 10 10 9 9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %
53

Percent of Single-Family Conventional Business Volume(2) Percent of Single-Family

Conventional Guaranty Book of

Business(3)(4)

As of

For the Three Months Ended

September 30,

For the Nine Months Ended

September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015 September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

Occupancy type:

Primary residence. . . . . . . 91 % 88 % 90 % 88 % 88 % 88 %

Second/vacation home . . . 4 4 4 4 4 4

Investor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 8 6 8 8 8

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

FICO credit score at

origination:

< 620(9)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * % 1 % * % 1 % 2 % 2 %

620 to < 660 . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5 4 4 5 5

660 to < 700 . . . . . . . . . . . 11 12 12 12 12 12

700 to < 740 . . . . . . . . . . . 20 21 21 20 20 20

>= 740 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 61 63 63 61 61

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Weighted average . . . . 752 747 749 749 745 744

Loan purpose:

Purchase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 % 54 % 47 % 44 % 35 % 33 %

Cash-out refinance . . . . . . 18 18 18 18 20 20

Other refinance. . . . . . . . . 35 28 35 38 45 47

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Geographic concentration:(10)

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 % 15 % 14 % 14 % 15 % 15 %

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 15 14 14 18 19

Southeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 21 21 20 22 22

Southwest. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 20 20 20 17 16

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 29 31 32 28 28

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Origination year:

<= 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 % 13 %

2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 2

2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 5

2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7

2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8

2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 21

2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 18

2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 11

2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 15

2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 —

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 %

__________

* Represents less than 0.5% of single-family conventional business volume or book of business.

(1) Second lien mortgage loans held by third parties are not reflected in the original LTV or mark-to-market LTV ratios in this table. 

(2) Calculated based on unpaid principal balance of single-family loans for each category at time of acquisition.

(3) 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 the end of each period.
54

(4) Our single-family conventional guaranty book of business includes jumbo-conforming and high-balance loans that represented 

approximately 6% of our single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of September 30, 2016 and 5% as of December 31, 

2015. See “Business—Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities—Charter Act—Loan Standards” and “MD&A—Risk Management

—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management—Credit Profile Summary—Jumbo Conforming and 

High-Balance Loans” in our 2015 Form 10-K for information on our loan limits.

(5) The original LTV ratio generally is based on the original unpaid principal balance of the loan divided by the appraised property value 

reported to us at the time of acquisition of the loan. Excludes loans for which this information is not readily available.

(6) We purchase loans with original LTV ratios above 80% as part of our mission to serve the primary mortgage market and provide 

liquidity to the housing finance system. Except as permitted under HARP, our charter generally requires primary mortgage insurance or 

other credit enhancement for loans that we acquire that have an LTV ratio over 80%.

(7) The aggregate estimated mark-to-market LTV ratio is based on the unpaid principal balance of the loan as of the end of each reported 

period divided by the estimated current value of the property, which we calculate using an internal valuation model that estimates 

periodic changes in home value. Excludes loans for which this information is not readily available.

(8) Long-term fixed-rate consists of mortgage loans with maturities greater than 15 years, while intermediate-term fixed-rate loans have 

maturities equal to or less than 15 years. Loans with interest-only terms are included in the interest-only category regardless of their 

maturities.

(9) Loans acquired after 2009 with FICO credit scores at origination below 620 consist primarily of the refinance of existing loans under 

our Refi Plus initiative.

(10) Midwest consists of IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, NE, ND, OH, SD and WI. Northeast consists of CT, DE, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, PR, RI, 

VT and VI. Southeast consists of AL, DC, FL, GA, KY, MD, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA and WV. Southwest consists of AZ, AR, CO, KS, 

LA, MO, NM, OK, TX and UT. West consists of AK, CA, GU, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA and WY.

Credit Profile Summary

Overview

Our acquisitions in the first nine months of 2016 continued to have a strong credit profile with a weighted average original 

LTV ratio of 74% and a weighted average FICO credit score at origination of 749. The credit profile of our future 

acquisitions will depend on many factors, including: our future guaranty fee pricing and any impact of that pricing on the 

volume and mix of loans we acquire; our future eligibility standards and those of mortgage insurers, FHA and VA; the 

percentage of loan originations representing refinancings; changes in interest rates; our future objectives and activities in 

support of those objectives, including actions we may take to reach additional underserved creditworthy borrowers; 

government policy; market and competitive conditions; and the volume and characteristics of HARP and high LTV refinance 

loans we acquire in the future. We expect the ultimate performance of all our loans will be affected by borrower behavior, 

public policy and macroeconomic trends, including unemployment, the economy and home prices. In addition, if lender 

customers retain more of the higher-quality loans they originate, it could negatively affect the credit profile of our new singlefamily acquisitions. We discuss our efforts to increase access to mortgage credit for creditworthy borrowers in “Executive 

Summary—Single-Family Guaranty Book of Business—Providing Access to Credit Opportunities for Creditworthy 

Borrowers.”

HARP and Refi Plus Loans

Since 2009, we have offered HARP under our Refi Plus initiative, which was designed to expand refinancing opportunities 

for borrowers who may otherwise be unable to refinance their mortgage loans due to a decline in home values. HARP offers 

refinancing flexibility to eligible borrowers who are current on their loans and whose loans are owned or guaranteed by us 

and meet certain additional criteria. Under HARP, we allow our borrowers who have mortgage loans that have note dates 

prior to June 2009 with current LTV ratios greater than 80% to refinance their mortgages without obtaining new mortgage 

insurance in excess of what is already in place. Accordingly, HARP loans have LTV ratios at origination in excess of 80%. 

HARP loans cannot (1) be an adjustable-rate mortgage loan, if the initial fixed period is less than five years; (2) have an 

interest only feature, which permits the payment of interest without a payment of principal; (3) be a balloon mortgage loan; 

or (4) have the potential for negative amortization. 

The loans we acquire under HARP have higher LTV ratios than we would otherwise permit, greater than 100% in some cases. 

Since 2012, we have acquired HARP loans with LTV ratios greater than 125% for fixed-rate loans of eligible borrowers. In 

addition to the high LTV ratios that characterize HARP loans, some borrowers for HARP and Refi Plus loans may also have 

lower FICO credit scores and may provide less documentation than we would otherwise require. As of September 30, 2016, 

HARP loans, which constituted 9% of our single-family book of business, had a weighted average FICO credit score at 

origination of 727 compared with 745 for loans in our single-family book of business overall.
55

Loans we acquire under Refi Plus and HARP represent refinancings of loans that are already in our guaranty book of 

business. The credit risk associated with the newly acquired loans essentially replaces the credit risk on the loans that we 

already held prior to the refinancing. These loans have higher risk profiles and higher serious delinquency rates than the other 

loans we have acquired since the beginning of 2009. However, we expect these loans will perform better than the loans they 

replace because HARP and Refi Plus loans should either reduce the borrowers’ monthly payments or provide more stable 

terms than the borrowers’ old loans (for example, by refinancing into a mortgage with a fixed interest rate instead of an 

adjustable rate). HARP loans constituted approximately 1% of our total single-family acquisitions in the first nine months of 

2016, compared with approximately 2% of total single-family acquisitions in the first nine months of 2015. We expect the 

volume of refinancings under HARP to continue to remain a small percentage of our acquisitions between now and the 

program’s expiration, due to the small population of borrowers with loans that have high LTV ratios who are willing to 

refinance and would benefit from refinancing. 

For information on the serious delinquency rates and current mark-to-market LTV ratios as of September 30, 2016 of singlefamily loans we acquired under HARP and Refi Plus, compared with other single-family loans we have acquired, see “Table 

24: Selected Credit Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Guaranty Book of Business, by Acquisition Period.”

In August 2016, FHFA directed us and Freddie Mac to implement a new high LTV refinance offering aimed at borrowers who 

are making their mortgage payments on time but whose LTV ratio exceeds the maximum allowed for our standard refinance 

products. Unlike HARP, the new high LTV refinance offering will not be limited to mortgage loans made prior to June 2009; 

however, existing Refi Plus (including HARP) mortgage loans will not be eligible for the offering. As with HARP, borrowers 

eligible for the offering generally will not be subject to a minimum credit score and there generally will be no maximum 

debt-to-income ratio or maximum LTV ratio. Borrower eligibility requirements will include being current on their mortgage 

payments and not having any 30-day delinquencies within the past six months and no more than one 30-day delinquency in 

the past twelve months. This new high LTV refinance offering is scheduled to be available beginning in October 2017. To 

ensure that high LTV borrowers who are eligible for HARP will not be without a refinance option while the new refinance 

offering is being implemented, FHFA also directed us and Freddie Mac to extend the HARP sunset date from December 31, 

2016 to September 30, 2017. We have also extended the end date of our Refi Plus initiative to September 30, 2017.

Alt-A Loans

We classify certain loans as Alt-A so that we can discuss our exposure to Alt-A loans in this Form 10-Q and elsewhere. 

However, there is no universally accepted definition of Alt-A loans. Our single-family conventional guaranty book of 

business includes loans with some features that are similar to Alt-A loans that we have not classified as Alt-A because they do 

not meet our classification criteria.

We do not rely solely on our classifications of loans as Alt-A to evaluate the credit risk exposure relating to these loans in our 

single-family conventional guaranty book of business. For more information about the credit risk characteristics of loans in 

our single-family guaranty book of business, see “Table 27: Risk Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Business 

Volume and Guaranty Book of Business,” “Note 3, Mortgage Loans” and “Note 13, Concentrations of Credit Risk.”

Our exposure to Alt-A loans included in our single-family conventional guaranty book of business, based on the classification 

criteria described in this section, does not include (1) our investments in private-label mortgage-related securities backed by 

Alt-A loans or (2) resecuritizations, or wraps, of private-label mortgage-related securities backed by Alt-A mortgage loans 

that we have guaranteed. See “Note 5, Investments in Securities” for more information on our exposure to private label 

mortgage-related securities backed by Alt-A loans. 

We have classified a mortgage loan as Alt-A if and only if the lender that delivered the loan to us classified the loan as Alt-A, 

based on documentation or other features. The unpaid principal balance of Alt-A loans included in our single-family 

conventional guaranty book of business of $90.8 billion as of September 30, 2016, represented approximately 3% of our 

single-family conventional guaranty book of business. Because we discontinued the purchase of newly originated Alt-A loans 

in 2009, except for those that represent the refinancing of a loan we acquired prior to 2009, we expect our acquisitions of AltA mortgage loans to continue to be minimal in future periods and the percentage of the book of business attributable to Alt-A

to continue to decrease over time.

See “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management—SingleFamily Portfolio Diversification and Monitoring” in our 2015 Form 10-K for a discussion of other types of loans, including 

jumbo conforming loans, high balance loans, reverse mortgages and mortgages with rate resets.

Problem Loan Management

Our problem loan management strategies are primarily focused on reducing defaults to avoid losses that would otherwise 

occur and pursuing foreclosure alternatives to attempt to minimize the severity of the losses we incur. If a borrower does not 
56

make required payments, or is in jeopardy of not making payments, we work with the servicers of our loans to offer workout 

solutions to minimize the likelihood of foreclosure as well as the severity of loss. Our loan workouts reflect our various types 

of home retention solutions, including loan modifications, repayment plans and forbearances, and foreclosure alternatives, 

including short sales and deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure. When appropriate, we seek to move to foreclosure expeditiously. See 

“MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management—Problem 

Loan Management” in our 2015 Form 10-K for a discussion of our work with mortgage servicers to implement our 

foreclosure prevention initiatives.

FHFA’s 2016 conservatorship scorecard includes objectives relating to reducing the number of our severely aged delinquent 

loans, including through nonperforming loan sales. During the first nine months of 2016, we sold approximately 20,300

nonperforming loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of $3.8 billion. As of September 30, 2016, we had sold a 

total of approximately 30,700 nonperforming loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of $5.9 billion. We plan to 

complete additional nonperforming loan sales in the future.

In the following section, we present statistics on our problem loans, describe efforts undertaken to manage these loans and 

prevent foreclosures, and provide metrics regarding the performance of our loan workout activities. Unless otherwise noted, 

single-family delinquency data is calculated based on number of loans. We include single-family conventional loans that we 

own and those that back Fannie Mae MBS in the calculation of the single-family delinquency rate. Seriously delinquent loans 

are loans that are 90 days or more past due or in the foreclosure process. Percentage of book outstanding calculations are 

based on the unpaid principal balance of loans for each category divided by the unpaid principal balance of our total singlefamily guaranty book of business for which we have detailed loan-level information.

Problem Loan Statistics

Table 28 displays the delinquency status of loans in our single-family conventional guaranty book of business (based on 

number of loans) and changes in the balance of seriously delinquent loans in our single-family conventional guaranty book of 

business.

Table 28: Delinquency Status and Activity of Single-Family Conventional Loans

As of

September 30,

2016

December 31,

2015

September 30,

2015

Delinquency status:

30 to 59 days delinquent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.45% 1.46% 1.48%

60 to 89 days delinquent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.39 0.41 0.40

Seriously delinquent (“SDQ”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.24 1.55 1.59

Percentage of SDQ loans that have been delinquent for more than 180 days . 64% 67% 69%

Percentage of SDQ loans that have been delinquent for more than two years. 25 30 32

For the Nine Months Ended

September 30,

2016 2015

Single-family SDQ loans (number of loans):

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267,174 329,590

Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183,395 197,263

Removals:

Modifications and other loan workouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (60,985) (73,044)

Liquidations and sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (89,236) (88,673)

Cured or less than 90 days delinquent. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (88,863) (89,588)

Total removals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (239,084) (251,305)

Ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 211,485 275,548

Our single-family serious delinquency rate has decreased each quarter since the first quarter of 2010 and is expected to 

continue to decrease. The decrease in our serious delinquency rate is primarily the result of home retention solutions, 

foreclosure alternatives and completed foreclosures, improved loan payment performance and our acquisition of loans with 
57

stronger credit profiles since the beginning of 2009. Loans we acquired since 2009 comprised 87% of our single-family 

guaranty book of business and had a serious delinquency rate of 0.33% as of September 30, 2016. In recent periods, 

nonperforming loan sales have also contributed to the decrease in our serious delinquency rate.

Our single-family serious delinquency rate and the period of time that loans remain seriously delinquent continue to be 

negatively impacted by the length of time required to complete a foreclosure in some states. 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 few years than it would have if the pace of foreclosures had been faster. The slow pace of 

foreclosures in certain areas of the country has negatively affected our single-family serious delinquency rates, foreclosure 

timelines and financial results, and may continue to do so. Other factors such as the pace of loan modifications, the timing 

and volume of future nonperforming loan sales we make, servicer performance, changes in home prices, unemployment 

levels and other macroeconomic conditions also influence serious delinquency rates. 

Certain higher-risk loan categories, such as Alt-A loans and loans with higher mark-to-market LTV ratios, and our 2005 

through 2008 loan vintages continue to exhibit higher than average delinquency rates and/or account for a higher share of our 

credit losses. Our 2005 to 2008 loan vintages represented approximately 45% of the loans added to our seriously delinquent 

loan population during the first nine months of 2016, and 53% of total seriously delinquent loans as of September 30, 2016. 

In addition, loans in certain states such as Florida, New Jersey and New York have exhibited higher than average delinquency 

rates and/or account for a higher share of our credit losses.
58

Table 29 displays the serious delinquency rates for, and the percentage of our total seriously delinquent single-family 

conventional loans represented by, the specified loan categories. We also include information for our loans in California, as 

this state accounts for a large share of our single-family conventional guaranty book of business. The reported categories are 

not mutually exclusive.

Table 29: Single-Family Conventional Seriously Delinquent Loan Concentration Analysis

As of

September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015 September 30, 2015

Percentage

of Book

Outstanding

Percentage 

of Seriously 

Delinquent 

Loans(1)

Serious

Delinquency

Rate

Percentage

of Book

Outstanding

Percentage 

of Seriously 

Delinquent 

Loans(1)

Serious

Delinquency

Rate

Percentage

of Book

Outstanding

Percentage 

of Seriously 

Delinquent 

Loans(1)

Serious

Delinquency

Rate

States:

California . . . . . . 20% 6% 0.49% 20% 5% 0.58% 20% 5% 0.60%

Florida . . . . . . . . 6 11 2.05 6 12 2.86 6 13 3.11

New Jersey. . . . . 4 9 3.47 4 10 4.87 4 10 5.01

New York. . . . . . 5 10 2.77 5 11 3.55 5 11 3.67

All other states . . 65 64 1.11 65 62 1.34 65 61 1.37

Product type:

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . 3 16 5.27 4 17 6.53 4 18 6.75

Vintages:

2004 and prior . . 4 26 2.75 5 26 3.06 6 27 3.08

2005-2008 . . . . . 9 53 6.49 10 57 7.60 11 58 7.64

2009-2016 . . . . . 87 21 0.33 85 17 0.36 83 15 0.34

Estimated mark-tomarket LTV

ratio:

<= 60%. . . . . . . . 49 32 0.69 46 27 0.78 47 28 0.80

60.01% to 70%. . 19 15 1.13 19 14 1.28 19 14 1.30

70.01% to 80%. . 17 16 1.40 17 15 1.59 17 15 1.70

80.01% to 90%. . 9 13 2.26 10 14 2.67 9 14 2.84

90.01% to 100%. 4 9 3.61 5 11 4.05 5 10 4.67

Greater than

100% . . . . . . . 2 15 10.56 3 19 10.76 3 19 10.71

Credit

enhancement:

Credit 

enhanced(2)

. . . . . 18 28 2.19 18 27 2.65 18 27 2.76

Non-credit

enhanced . . . . 82 72 1.06 82 73 1.34 82 73 1.38

__________

(1) Calculated based on the number of single-family loans that were seriously delinquent for each category divided by the total number of 

single-family conventional loans that were seriously delinquent.

(2) Refers to loans included in an agreement used to reduce credit risk by requiring mortgage insurance, collateral, letters of credit, 

corporate guarantees, or other agreements to provide an entity with some assurance that it will be compensated to some degree in the 

event of a financial loss. Excludes loans in reference pools for CAS transactions unless such loans are also covered by mortgage 

insurance.

See “Table 11: Credit Loss Concentration Analysis” in “Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related Income 

(Expense)—Credit Loss Performance Metrics” for information on concentrations of our single-family credit losses in recent 

periods based on geography, credit characteristics and loan vintages.
59

Loan Workout Metrics

Table 30 displays statistics on our single-family loan workouts that were completed, by type. These statistics include loan 

modifications but do not include trial modifications, loans to certain borrowers who have received bankruptcy relief that are 

classified as TDRs, or repayment or forbearance plans that have been initiated but not completed. As of September 30, 2016, 

there were approximately 29,300 loans in a trial modification period. For a description of our loan workout types, see 

“MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management—Problem Loan 

Management—Loan Workout Metrics” in our 2015 Form 10-K.

Table 30: Statistics on Single-Family Loan Workouts

For the Nine Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Number

of Loans

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Number

of Loans

(Dollars in millions)

Home retention solutions:

Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10,553 62,979 $ 12,560 75,113

Repayment plans and forbearances completed(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 631 4,491 667 4,795

Total home retention solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,184 67,470 13,227 79,908

Foreclosure alternatives:

Short sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,777 8,577 2,396 11,593

Deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 702 4,631 895 5,723

Total foreclosure alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,479 13,208 3,291 17,316

Total loan workouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 13,663 80,678 $ 16,518 97,224

Loan workouts as a percentage of single-family guaranty book of

business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.65 % 0.63 % 0.78 % 0.75 %

__________

(1) Repayment plans reflect only those plans associated with loans that were 60 days or more delinquent. Forbearances reflect loans that were 

90 days or more delinquent.

The volume of home retention solutions completed in the first nine months of 2016 decreased compared with the first nine 

months of 2015, primarily due to a decline in the number of delinquent loans in the first nine months of 2016, compared with 

the first nine months of 2015.

We continue to work with our servicers to implement our home retention and foreclosure prevention initiatives. Our approach 

to workouts continues to focus on the large number of borrowers facing financial hardships. Accordingly, the vast majority of 

loan modifications we have completed since 2009 have been concentrated on deferring or lowering the borrowers’ monthly 

mortgage payments to allow borrowers to work through their hardships. 

Our loan modifications can include a reduction in the borrower’s interest rate that is fixed for an initial period and may be 

followed by one or more annual interest rate increases. The majority of these rate reset modifications are performing loans 

that were modified under HAMP® and have fixed interest rates for an initial five-year period followed by annual interest rate 

increases, of up to one percent per year, until the mortgage rate reaches the prevailing market rate at the time of modification. 

The outstanding unpaid principal balance of rate reset modifications in our guaranty book of business was $67.8 billion as of 

September 30, 2016. During the first nine months of 2016, approximately 55% of these modified loans experienced an 

interest rate reset to a weighted average interest rate of 3.73%. In anticipation of potential financial hardship related to 

interest rate increases, we have directed servicers to evaluate rate reset modifications for a re-modification if the loan is at 

imminent risk of default and the borrower requests a loan modification or if the loan becomes 60 days delinquent within the 

first 12 months after an interest rate adjustment. Additionally, for borrowers with HAMP modifications we extended “pay for 

performance” incentives, in the form of principal curtailment, to encourage borrowers to stay current on their mortgages after 

the initial interest rate reset and to reduce their monthly payments in cases where the borrower chooses to re-amortize their 

unpaid principal balance following receipt of the incentive. In May 2015, FHFA announced the extension of the ending date 

for HAMP to December 31, 2016. See “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage 

Credit Risk Management—Credit Profile Summary—Mortgage Products with Rate Resets” in our 2015 Form 10-K for 

additional information on the timing of these initial interest rate resets. 
60

As directed by FHFA, in April 2016, we announced a new principal reduction modification program. This program is a 

targeted effort to assist seriously delinquent borrowers with negative equity in their homes avoid foreclosure and help 

improve the stability of communities that have not yet recovered from the housing crisis. The program offers principal 

reduction to borrowers who, as of March 1, 2016, met the specific requirements set forth in the program, including the 

following: the borrower was at least 90 days delinquent, had a loan with an unpaid principal balance of $250,000 or less, and 

was an owner-occupant. In addition, at the time of evaluation, the loan must have a post-modification mark-to-market LTV

ratio of more than 115%. The amount of principal reduction we will provide to a borrower who meets the requirements of the 

program is the lesser of: (1) the amount that would create a post-modification mark-to-market LTV ratio of 115%; or (2) 30% 

of the gross post-modified unpaid principal balance of the loan. We estimate that approximately 22,000 loans in our singlefamily guaranty book of business as of March 31, 2016 were eligible for the principal reduction modification program. We 

expect trial modifications under this program to continue through the first quarter of 2017, converting to permanent 

modifications between now and the second quarter of 2017.

REO Management

Foreclosure and REO activity affect the amount of credit losses we realize in a given period. Table 31 displays our 

foreclosure activity by region. Regional REO acquisition and charge-off trends generally follow a pattern that is similar to, 

but lags, that of regional delinquency trends.

Table 31: Single-Family Foreclosed Properties

For the Nine Months

Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Single-family foreclosed properties (number of properties):

Beginning of period inventory of single-family foreclosed properties (REO)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,253 87,063

Acquisitions by geographic area:(2)

Midwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,865 13,302

Northeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,897 11,854

Southeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,805 23,990

Southwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,418 6,478

West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,788 6,262

Total properties acquired through foreclosure(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,773 61,886

Dispositions of REO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (58,053) (87,991)

End of period inventory of single-family foreclosed properties (REO)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41,973 60,958

Carrying value of single-family foreclosed properties (dollars in millions) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,833 $ 7,245

Single-family foreclosure rate(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.33 % 0.48 %

__________

(1) Includes acquisitions through deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure. Also includes held for use properties, which are reported in our condensed 

consolidated balance sheets as a component of “Other assets.”

(2) See footnote 10 to “Table 27: Risk Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Business Volume and Guaranty Book of Business” 

for states included in each geographic region.

(3) Estimated based on the annualized total number of properties acquired through foreclosure or deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure as a 

percentage of the total number of loans in our single-family guaranty book of business as of the end of each respective period.

The continued decrease in the number of our seriously delinquent single-family loans resulted in a reduction in the number of 

REO acquisitions in the first nine months of 2016 compared with the first nine months of 2015.

In some cases, we engage in third party sales at foreclosure, which allow us to avoid maintenance and other REO expenses 

we would have incurred had we acquired the property.

We continue to manage our REO inventory to appropriately control costs and maximize sales proceeds. However, we are 

unable to market and sell a large portion of our inventory, primarily due to occupancy and state or local redemption or 

confirmation periods, which extends the amount of time it takes to bring our properties to a marketable state and eventually 

dispose of them. This results in higher foreclosed property expenses, which include costs related to maintaining the property 

and ensuring that the property is vacant. As of September 30, 2016, approximately 38% of our REO properties were unable to 
61

be marketed, 26% of our REO properties were available for sale, 18% of our REO properties were pending sale settlement 

and 18% of our REO properties were pending appraisals and being prepared to be listed for sale.

Multifamily Mortgage Credit Risk Management

The credit risk profile of our multifamily mortgage credit book of business is influenced by the structure of the financing, the 

type and location of the property, the condition and value of the property, the financial strength of the borrower, market and 

sub-market trends and growth, and the current and anticipated cash flows from the property. These and other factors affect 

both the amount of expected credit loss on a given loan and the sensitivity of that loss to changes in the economic 

environment. We provide information on our multifamily credit-related income and credit losses in “Business Segment 

Results—Multifamily Business Results.”

Multifamily Acquisition Policy and Underwriting Standards

Our Multifamily business is responsible for pricing and managing the credit risk on multifamily mortgage loans we purchase 

and on Fannie Mae MBS backed by multifamily loans (whether held in our retained mortgage portfolio or held by third 

parties), with oversight from our Enterprise Risk Management division. Our primary multifamily delivery channel is the 

Delegated Underwriting and Servicing, or DUS®, program, which consists of large financial institutions and independent 

mortgage lenders. Multifamily loans that we purchase or that back Fannie Mae MBS are underwritten by a Fannie Maeapproved lender and may be subject to our underwriting review prior to closing, depending on the product type, loan size, 

market and/or other factors. Loans delivered to us by DUS lenders and their affiliates represented 97% of our multifamily 

guaranty book of business as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. 

We use credit enhancement arrangements, primarily lender risk-sharing, for our multifamily loans. Lenders in the DUS 

program typically share in loan-level credit losses in one of two ways: (1) they bear losses up to the first 5% of the unpaid 

principal balance of the loan and share in remaining losses up to a prescribed limit; or (2) they share up to one-third of the 

losses on a pro rata basis with us. Non-DUS lenders typically share or absorb losses based on a negotiated percentage of the 

loan or the pool balance. 

As of September 30, 2016, 93% of the unpaid principal balance of loans in our multifamily guaranty book of business had 

lender risk-sharing. Our maximum potential loss recovery from lenders under current risk-sharing agreements represented 

over 20% of the unpaid principal balance of our multifamily guaranty book of business as of September 30, 2016. These risksharing agreements not only transfer credit risk, but also better align our interests with those of the lenders.

At the time of our purchase or guarantee of multifamily mortgage loans, we and our lenders rely on sound underwriting 

standards, which generally include third-party appraisals and cash flow analysis. Our standards for multifamily loans specify 

maximum original LTV ratio and minimum original debt service coverage ratio (“DSCR”) values that vary based on loan 

characteristics. Our experience has been that original LTV ratio and DSCR values have been reliable indicators of future 

credit performance. At underwriting, we evaluate the DSCR based on both actual and underwritten debt service payments. 

The original DSCR is calculated using the underwritten debt service payments for the loan, rather than the actual debt service 

payments, which, depending on the interest rate of the loan and loan structure, may result in a more conservative estimate of 

the debt service payments.

Table 32 displays original LTV ratio and DSCR metrics for our multifamily guaranty book of business. 

Table 32: Multifamily Guaranty Book of Business Key Risk Characteristics

As of

September 30,

2016

December 31,

2015

September 30,

2015

Weighted average original LTV ratio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67% 66% 66%

Original LTV ratio greater than 80% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 3

Original DSCR less than or equal to 1.10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 11 10

The percentage of our book of business with an original DSCR less than or equal to 1.10 has increased to 13% as of 

September 30, 2016, driven by an increase in business volume funded with adjustable-rate mortgages and with fixed-rate 

mortgages with different loan structures, which are underwritten at higher interest rates than the actual rates on those loans. 
62

Multifamily Portfolio Diversification and Monitoring

Diversification within our multifamily mortgage credit book of business by geographic concentration, term to maturity, 

interest rate structure, borrower concentration and loan size, as well as credit enhancement coverage, are important factors 

that influence credit performance and help reduce our credit risk.

We and our lenders monitor the performance and risk characteristics of our multifamily loans and the underlying properties 

on an ongoing basis throughout the loan term at the asset and portfolio level. We closely monitor loans with an estimated 

current DSCR below 1.0, as that is an indicator of heightened default risk. The percentage of loans in our multifamily 

guaranty book of business, calculated based on unpaid principal balance, with a current DSCR less than 1.0 was 

approximately 2% as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. Our estimates of current DSCRs are based on the latest 

available income information for these properties. Although we use the most recently available results from our multifamily 

borrowers, there is a lag in reporting, which typically can range from 3 to 6 months but in some cases may be longer. 

Multifamily Problem Loan Management and Foreclosure Prevention

We periodically refine our underwriting standards in response to market conditions and implement proactive portfolio 

management and monitoring which are each designed to keep credit losses and delinquencies to a low level relative to our 

multifamily guaranty book of business. The multifamily serious delinquency rate was 0.07% as of September 30, 2016 and 

December 31, 2015. We classify multifamily loans as seriously delinquent when payment is 60 days or more past due.

REO Management

The number of multifamily foreclosed properties held for sale increased from 12 properties with a carrying value of $91 

million as of December 31, 2015 to 24 properties with a carrying value of $134 million as of September 30, 2016. Despite the 

increase in the number of properties, we expect the level of foreclosure activity to remain low as the national multifamily 

sector continues to exhibit stability.

Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk Management

Institutional counterparty credit risk is the risk that our institutional counterparties may fail to fulfill their contractual 

obligations to us. Defaults by a counterparty with significant obligations to us could result in significant financial losses to us.

See “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk Management” and 

“Risk Factors” in our 2015 Form 10-K for additional information about institutional counterparty risk, including counterparty 

risk we face from mortgage originators, investors and dealers, from debt security dealers, from document custodians and 

from mortgage fraud.

Mortgage Sellers and Servicers

One of our primary exposures to institutional counterparty risk is with mortgage servicers that service the loans we hold in 

our retained mortgage portfolio or that back our Fannie Mae MBS, as well as mortgage sellers and servicers that are 

obligated to repurchase loans from us or reimburse us for losses in certain circumstances. We rely on mortgage servicers to 

meet our servicing standards and fulfill their servicing obligations. We also rely on mortgage sellers and servicers to fulfill 

their repurchase obligations. 

Our five largest single-family mortgage servicers, including their affiliates, serviced approximately 40% of our single-family 

guaranty book of business as of September 30, 2016, compared with approximately 44% as of December 31, 2015. Our 

largest mortgage servicer is Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which, together with its affiliates, serviced approximately 17% of our 

single-family guaranty book of business as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015.

Our five largest multifamily mortgage servicers, including their affiliates, serviced approximately 46% of our multifamily 

guaranty book of business as of September 30, 2016, compared with approximately 45% as of December 31, 2015. Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A. and Walker & Dunlop, LLC each serviced over 10% of our multifamily guaranty book of business as of 

September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. 

A large portion of our single-family guaranty book is serviced by non-depository servicers. As of September 30, 2016, 18%

of our total single-family guaranty book of business, including 57% of our delinquent single-family loans, was serviced by 

our five largest non-depository servicers, compared with 19% of our total single-family guaranty book of business, including 

60% of our delinquent single-family loans, as of December 31, 2015. Compared with depository financial institutions, nondepository servicers pose additional risks to us because non-depository servicers may have a greater reliance on third-party 

sources of liquidity and may, in the event of significant increases in delinquent loan volumes, have less financial capacity to 

advance funds on our behalf or satisfy repurchase requests or compensatory fee obligations. In addition, regulatory bodies 
63

have been reviewing the activities of some of our largest non-depository servicers. See “Risk Factors” in our 2015 Form 10-

K for a discussion of the risks of our reliance on servicers.

Our five largest single-family mortgage sellers, including their affiliates, accounted for approximately 28% of our singlefamily business acquisition volume in the first nine months of 2016, compared with approximately 29% in the first nine 

months of 2015. Our largest mortgage seller is Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., which, together with its affiliates, accounted for 

approximately 13% of our single-family business acquisition volume in the first nine months of 2016 and 2015. We acquire a 

portion of our business volume directly from non-depository and smaller depository financial institutions that may not have 

the same financial strength or operational capacity as our largest mortgage seller counterparties. We could be required to 

absorb losses on defaulted loans that a failed mortgage seller is obligated to repurchase from us if we determine there was an 

underwriting eligibility breach.

Repurchase Requests

Mortgage sellers and servicers may not meet the terms of their repurchase obligations, and we may be unable to recover on 

all outstanding loan repurchase obligations resulting from their breaches of contractual obligations, which may have an 

adverse effect on our results of operations and financial condition. See “Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management—

Single-Family Acquisition and Servicing Policies and Underwriting and Servicing Standards” for additional information 

regarding repurchase requests and the balance of our outstanding repurchase requests as of September 30, 2016.

Credit Guarantors

We use various types of credit guarantors to manage our mortgage credit risk, including mortgage insurers, financial 

guarantors, reinsurers and multifamily lenders with risk sharing. 

Mortgage Insurers

We are generally required, pursuant to our charter, to obtain credit enhancements on single-family conventional mortgage 

loans that we purchase or securitize with LTV ratios over 80% at the time of purchase. We use several types of credit 

enhancements to manage our single-family mortgage credit risk, including primary and pool mortgage insurance coverage. 

Table 33 displays our risk in force for mortgage insurance coverage on single-family loans in our guaranty book of business 

and our insurance in force for our mortgage insurer counterparties, excluding insurance coverage provided by federal 

government entities and credit insurance obtained through CIRT deals. The table includes our top ten mortgage insurer 

counterparties, which provided over 99% of our total mortgage insurance coverage on single-family loans in our guaranty 

book of business as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. In addition, for our mortgage insurer counterparties not 

approved to write new business, we have provided the percentage of their claims payments the counterparties are currently 

deferring based on the direction of their state regulators, referred to as their deferred payment obligation. As of September 30, 

2016 and December 31, 2015, approximately 1% of our total risk in force mortgage insurance coverage was pool insurance. 

In addition, approximately 1% and 2% of our total insurance in force mortgage insurance coverage was pool insurance as of 

September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015.
64

Table 33: Mortgage Insurance Coverage

Risk in Force(1) Insurance in Force(2)

As of As of Deferred

September 30, December 31, September 30, December 31, Payment

2016 2015 2016 2015 Obligation %(3)

(Dollars in millions)

Counterparty:(4)

Approved:

(5)

United Guaranty Residential Insurance Co. . . . . . $ 27,601 $ 27,396 $ 106,022 $ 105,627

Radian Guaranty, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,654 25,191 99,710 98,274

Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. . . . . . . . . . . 24,485 23,850 94,517 92,026

Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corp. . . . . . . . . . . 18,165 16,700 71,321 65,735

Essent Guaranty, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,468 8,787 41,984 35,673

Arch Mortgage Insurance Co.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,192 3,697 20,556 14,822

National Mortgage Insurance Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . 3,852 1,989 19,141 11,997

Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 233 1,641 1,409

Total approved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115,686 107,843 454,892 425,563

Not approved:

(5)

PMI Mortgage Insurance Co.(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,059 4,805 16,232 19,212 28.5%

(7)

Republic Mortgage Insurance Co.(6). . . . . . . . . . . 3,318 3,921 12,914 15,450 —

Triad Guaranty Insurance Corp.(6). . . . . . . . . . . . 1,170 1,348 4,217 4,864 25.0%

Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 14 37 44

Total not approved . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,559 10,088 33,400 39,570

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 124,245 $ 117,931 $ 488,292 $ 465,133

Total as a percentage of single-family guaranty

book of business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 % 4 % 17 % 16 %

__________

(1) Risk in force is generally the maximum potential loss recovery under the applicable mortgage insurance policies in force and is 

based on the loan level insurance coverage percentage and, if applicable, any aggregate pool loss limit, as specified in the policy. 

(2) Insurance in force represents the unpaid principal balance of single-family loans in our guaranty book of business covered under the 

applicable mortgage insurance policies.

(3) Deferred payment obligation represents the percentage of cash payments on policyholder claims being deferred as directed by the 

insurer’s respective regulator in the state of domicile as of September 30, 2016.

(4) Insurance coverage amounts provided for each counterparty may include coverage provided by consolidated affiliates and subsidiaries 

of the counterparty.

(5) “Approved” mortgage insurers are counterparties approved to write new insurance with us. “Not approved” mortgage insurers are 

counterparties that are no longer approved to write new insurance with us.

(6) These mortgage insurers are under various forms of supervised control by their state regulators and are in run-off.

(7) Effective June 10, 2016, PMI increased its cash payments on policyholder claims from 70% to 71.5%, and subsequently paid sufficient 

amounts of its outstanding deferred payment obligations to bring payment on those claims to 71.5%. It is uncertain whether PMI will be 

permitted in the future to pay any remaining deferred policyholder claims or increase or decrease the amount of cash it pays on claims.

We manage our exposure to mortgage insurers by maintaining eligibility requirements that an insurer must meet to be a 

qualified mortgage insurer. We require a certification and supporting documentation annually from each mortgage insurer and 

perform periodic reviews of mortgage insurers to confirm compliance with eligibility requirements and to evaluate their 

management, control and underwriting practices. Our monitoring of the mortgage insurers includes in-depth financial reviews 

and analyses of the insurers’ portfolios and capital adequacy under hypothetical stress scenarios.
65

Although the financial condition of our primary mortgage insurer counterparties currently approved to write new business has 

improved in recent years, there is still a risk that these counterparties may fail to fulfill their obligations to pay our claims 

under insurance policies. In addition, as shown in “Table 33: Mortgage Insurance Coverage,” three of our top mortgage 

insurer counterparties—PMI Mortgage Insurance Co., Republic Mortgage Insurance Company and Triad Guaranty Insurance 

Corporation—are currently under various forms of supervised control by their state regulators and are in run-off, which 

increases the risk that these counterparties will pay claims only in part or fail to pay claims at all under existing insurance 

policies. See “Risk Factors” in our 2015 Form 10-K for a discussion of the risks to our business of claims under our mortgage 

insurance policies not being paid in full or at all, including the risks associated with our three mortgage insurance 

counterparties that are in run off.

In August 2016, Arch Capital Group Ltd., the ultimate parent company of Arch Mortgage Insurance Co., announced that it 

had entered into an agreement to acquire United Guaranty Corporation and AIG United Guaranty Insurance (Asia) Limited 

from their current owner, American International Group, Inc. United Guaranty Corporation is the ultimate parent company of 

United Guaranty Residential Insurance Co. The acquisition is subject to regulatory approvals and other closing conditions. In 

addition, the continued approval of United Guaranty Residential Insurance Co. and its subsidiary United Guaranty Mortgage 

Indemnity Company as our mortgage insurer counterparties following the acquisition is subject to our review.

When we estimate the credit losses that are inherent in our mortgage loans and under the terms of our guaranty obligations 

we also consider the recoveries that we will receive on primary mortgage insurance, as mortgage insurance recoveries would 

reduce the severity of the loss associated with defaulted loans. We evaluate the financial condition of our mortgage insurer 

counterparties and adjust the contractually due recovery amounts to ensure that only probable losses as of the balance sheet 

date are included in our loss reserve estimate. As a result, if our assessment of one or more of our mortgage insurer 

counterparties’ ability to fulfill their respective obligations to us worsens, it could result in an increase in our loss reserves. 

The amount by which our estimated benefit from mortgage insurance reduced our total loss reserves was $1.5 billion as of 

September 30, 2016 and $2.3 billion as of December 31, 2015.

When an insured loan held in our retained mortgage portfolio subsequently goes into foreclosure, we charge off the loan, 

eliminating any previously-recorded loss reserves, and record REO and a mortgage insurance receivable for the claim 

proceeds deemed probable of recovery, as appropriate. However, if a mortgage insurer rescinds, cancels or denies insurance 

coverage, the initial receivable becomes due from the mortgage seller or servicer. We had outstanding receivables of $1.0 

billion recorded in “Other assets” in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2016 and $1.2 billion as 

of December 31, 2015 related to amounts claimed on insured, defaulted loans excluding government insured loans. Of this 

amount, $135 million as of September 30, 2016 and $241 million as of December 31, 2015 was due from our mortgage 

sellers or servicers. We assessed the total outstanding receivables for collectibility, and they are recorded net of a valuation 

allowance of $658 million as of September 30, 2016 and $770 million as of December 31, 2015. The valuation allowance 

reduces our claim receivable to the amount considered probable of collection as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 

2015.

Financial Guarantors

We are the beneficiary of non-governmental financial guarantees on non-agency securities held in our retained mortgage 

portfolio and on non-agency securities that have been resecuritized to include a Fannie Mae guaranty and sold to third parties. 

The total unpaid principal balance of guaranteed non-agency securities in our retained mortgage portfolio was $2.0 billion as 

of September 30, 2016 and $3.2 billion as of December 31, 2015. See “Note 15, Concentrations of Credit Risk” in our 2015 

Form 10-K for a further discussion of our exposure to financial guarantors.

We are also the beneficiary of financial guarantees included in securities issued by Freddie Mac, the federal government and 

its agencies that totaled $12.0 billion as of September 30, 2016 and $16.7 billion as of December 31, 2015.

Credit Insurance Risk Transfer Counterparties

In a credit insurance risk transfer transaction, we shift a portion of the credit risk on a reference pool of mortgage loans to a 

panel of credit insurers or reinsurers. A portion of the credit insurers’ or reinsurers’ obligations are collateralized with highlyrated liquid assets held in a trust account. Our credit insurance risk transfer transactions are described in “Single-Family 

Mortgage Credit Risk Management—Transfer of Mortgage Credit Risk—Credit Risk-Sharing Transactions.”

Multifamily Lenders with Risk Sharing

We enter into risk sharing agreements with lenders pursuant to which the lenders agree to bear all or some portion of the 

credit losses on the covered loans. Our maximum potential loss recovery from lenders under risk sharing agreements on DUS 

and non-DUS multifamily loans was $52.2 billion as of September 30, 2016, compared with $46.2 billion as of December 31, 
66

2015. As of September 30, 2016, 42% of our maximum potential loss recovery on multifamily loans was from four DUS 

lenders, compared with 40% as of December 31, 2015. 

As noted above in “Multifamily Mortgage Credit Risk Management—Multifamily Acquisition Policy and Underwriting 

Standards,” our primary multifamily delivery channel is our DUS program, which is comprised of lenders that range from 

large depositories to independent non-bank financial institutions. As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, 35% of 

the unpaid principal balance of loans in our multifamily guaranty book of business serviced by our DUS lenders was from 

institutions with an external investment grade credit rating or a guaranty from an affiliate with an external investment grade 

credit rating. Given the recourse nature of the DUS program, the lenders are bound by eligibility standards that dictate, 

among other items, minimum capital and liquidity levels, and the posting of collateral at a highly rated custodian to secure a 

portion of the lenders’ future obligations. We actively monitor the financial condition of these lenders to help ensure the level 

of risk remains within our standards and to ensure required capital levels are maintained and are in alignment with actual and 

modeled loss projections.

Custodial Depository Institutions

We evaluate our custodial depository institutions to determine whether they are eligible to hold deposits on our behalf based 

on requirements specified in our Servicing Guide. If a custodial depository institution were to fail while holding remittances 

of borrower payments of principal and interest due to us in our custodial account, we would be an unsecured creditor of the 

depository for balances in excess of the deposit insurance protection and might not be able to recover all of the principal and 

interest payments being held by the depository on our behalf, or there might be a substantial delay in receiving these 

amounts. If this were to occur, we would be required to replace these amounts with our own funds to make payments that are 

due to Fannie Mae MBS certificateholders. Accordingly, the insolvency of one of our principal custodial depository 

counterparties could result in significant financial losses to us. During the month of September 2016, approximately $4.8 

billion, or 10%, of our total deposits for single-family payments and approximately $1.0 billion, or 39%, of our total deposits 

for multifamily payments received and held by these institutions was in excess of the deposit insurance protection limit. 

These amounts can vary as they are calculated based on individual payments of mortgage borrowers, which requires us to 

estimate which borrowers are paying their regular principal and interest payments and other types of payments, such 

as prepayments from refinancing or sales.

A total of $48.2 billion in deposits for single-family payments were received and held by 256 institutions during the month of 

September 2016 and a total of $31.5 billion in deposits for single-family payments were received and held by 263 institutions 

during the month of December 2015. Of these total deposits, 90% as of September 30, 2016, were held by institutions rated 

as investment grade by S&P Global Ratings (“S&P”), “Aaa” by Moody’s Investors Services (“Moody’s”) and “AAA” by 

Fitch Ratings Limited (“Fitch”), compared with 92% as of December 31, 2015. Our transactions with custodial depository 

institutions are concentrated. Our six largest custodial depository institutions held 79% of these deposits as of September 30, 

2016, compared with 83% as of December 31, 2015.

During the month of September 2016, a total of $2.6 billion in deposits for multifamily payments were received and held by 

28 institutions and $3.4 billion in deposits for multifamily payments were received and held by 28 institutions during the 

month of December 2015. Of these total deposits, 97% as of September 30, 2016, were held by institutions rated as 

investment grade by S&P, Moody’s and Fitch, compared with 98% as of December 31, 2015. Our transactions with custodial 

depository institutions are concentrated. Our six largest custodial depository institutions held 88% of these deposits as of 

September 30, 2016, compared with 95% as of December 31, 2015.

Counterparty Credit Exposure of Investments Held in our Cash and Other Investments Portfolio

Our cash and other investments portfolio consists of cash and cash equivalents, securities purchased under agreements to 

resell or similar arrangements and U.S. Treasury securities. Our cash and other investment counterparties are primarily 

financial institutions, including clearing organizations, and the Federal Reserve Bank. As of September 30, 2016 and 

December 31, 2015, we held $2.0 billion in short-term unsecured deposits with two financial institutions that had a shortterm credit rating of A-1 from S&P (or its equivalent), based on the lowest credit rating issued by S&P, Moody’s and Fitch, 

and no other unsecured positions other than U.S. Treasury securities. See “Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity 

Management—Cash and Other Investments Portfolio” for more detailed information on our cash and other investments 

portfolio.

Derivative Counterparty Credit Exposure

Our derivative counterparty credit exposure relates principally to interest rate derivative contracts. We are exposed to the risk 

that a counterparty in a derivative transaction will default on payments due to us, which may require us to seek a replacement 

derivative from a different counterparty. This replacement may be at a higher cost, or we may be unable to find a suitable 
67

replacement. Historically, our risk management derivative transactions have been made pursuant to bilateral contracts with a 

specific counterparty governed by the terms of an International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc. master agreement. 

Pursuant to regulations implementing the Dodd-Frank Act, we are required to submit certain categories of new interest rate 

swaps to a derivatives clearing organization. We refer to our derivative transactions made pursuant to bilateral contracts as 

our over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivative transactions and our derivative transactions accepted for clearing by a derivatives 

clearing organization as our cleared derivative transactions.

We manage our derivative counterparty credit exposure relating to our OTC derivative transactions through enforceable 

master netting arrangements. These arrangements allow us to net derivative assets and liabilities with the same counterparty. 

We also manage our derivative counterparty exposure relating to our OTC derivative transactions by requiring counterparties 

to post collateral, which includes cash, U.S. Treasury securities, agency debt and agency mortgage-related securities.

Our cleared derivative transactions are submitted to a derivatives clearing organization on our behalf through a clearing 

member of the organization. A contract accepted by a derivatives clearing organization is governed by the terms of the 

clearing organization’s rules and arrangements between us and the clearing member of the clearing organization. As a result, 

we are exposed to the institutional credit risk of both the derivatives clearing organization and the member who is acting on 

our behalf. We manage our credit exposure relating to our cleared derivative transactions through enforceable master netting 

arrangements. These arrangements allow us to net our exposure to cleared derivatives by clearing organization and by 

clearing member. 

Our institutional credit risk exposure to derivatives clearing organizations and certain of their members may continue to 

increase in the future if cleared derivative contracts comprise a larger percentage of our derivative instruments. We estimate 

our exposure to credit loss on derivative instruments by calculating the replacement cost, on a present value basis, to settle at 

current market prices all outstanding derivative contracts in a net gain position at the counterparty level where the right of 

legal offset exists. 

The fair value of derivatives in a gain position is included in our condensed consolidated balance sheets in “Other assets.” 

Total exposure represents our exposure to credit loss on derivative instruments less the cash and non-cash collateral posted by 

our counterparties to us. This does not include collateral held in excess of exposure. Our total exposure was $27 million as of 

September 30, 2016 and $31 million as of December 31, 2015. The majority of our total exposure as of each date consisted of 

mortgage insurance contracts accounted for as derivatives.

As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we had sixteen counterparties with which we may transact OTC 

derivative transactions, all of which were subject to enforceable master netting arrangements. We had outstanding notional 

amounts with all of these counterparties, and the highest concentration by our total outstanding notional amount was 

approximately 9% as of September 30, 2016 and 7% as of December 31, 2015. 

See “Note 9, Derivative Instruments” and “Note 14, Netting Arrangements” for additional information on our derivative 

contracts as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015.

Market Risk Management, Including Interest Rate Risk Management

We are subject to market risk, which includes interest rate risk, spread risk and liquidity risk. These risks arise from our 

mortgage asset investments. Interest rate risk is the risk of loss in value or expected future earnings that may result from 

changes to interest rates. Spread risk or basis risk is the resulting impact of changes in the spread between our mortgage 

assets and our debt and derivatives we use to hedge our position. Liquidity risk is the risk that we will not be able to meet our 

funding obligations in a timely manner. We describe our sources of interest rate risk exposure, business risks posed by 

changes in interest rates, and our strategy for managing interest rate risk and spread risk in “MD&A—Risk Management—

Market Risk Management, Including Interest Rate Risk Management” and in “Risk Factors” in both our 2015 Form 10-K and 

this report. 

Measurement of Interest Rate Risk

Below we present two quantitative metrics that provide estimates of our interest rate risk exposure: (1) fair value sensitivity 

of our net portfolio to changes in interest rate levels and slope of yield curve; and (2) duration gap. Our net portfolio consists 

of our retained mortgage portfolio assets; cash and other investments portfolio assets; our outstanding debt of Fannie Mae 

that is used to fund our retained mortgage portfolio assets and cash and other investments portfolio assets; mortgage 

commitments; and risk management derivatives. Risk management derivatives along with our debt instruments are used to 

manage interest rate risk. 

The metrics presented are calculated using internal models that require standard assumptions regarding interest rates and 

future prepayments of principal over the remaining life of our securities. These assumptions are derived based on the 
68

characteristics of the underlying structure of the securities and historical prepayment rates experienced at specified interest 

rate levels, taking into account current market conditions, the current mortgage rates of our existing outstanding loans, loan 

age and other factors. On a continuous basis, management makes judgments about the appropriateness of the risk 

assessments and will make adjustments as necessary to properly assess our interest rate exposure and manage our interest rate 

risk. The methodologies used to calculate risk estimates are periodically changed on a prospective basis to reflect 

improvements in the underlying estimation process.

Interest Rate Sensitivity to Changes in Interest Rate Level and Slope of Yield Curve

Pursuant to a disclosure commitment with FHFA, we disclose on a monthly basis the estimated adverse impact on the fair 

value of our net portfolio that would result from the following hypothetical situations:

• A 50 basis point shift in interest rates.

• A 25 basis point change in the slope of the yield curve.

In measuring the estimated impact of changes in the level of interest rates, we assume a parallel shift in all maturities of the 

U.S. LIBOR interest rate swap curve.

In measuring the estimated impact of changes in the slope of the yield curve, we assume a constant 7-year rate and a shift of 

16.7 basis points for the 1-year rate and 8.3 basis points for the 30-year rate. We believe the aforementioned interest rate 

shocks for our monthly disclosures represent moderate movements in interest rates over a one-month period.

Duration Gap

Duration gap measures the price sensitivity of our assets and liabilities in our net portfolio to changes in interest rates by 

quantifying the difference between the estimated durations of our assets and liabilities. Our duration gap analysis reflects the 

extent to which the estimated maturity and repricing cash flows for our assets are matched, on average, over time and across 

interest rate scenarios to those of our liabilities. A positive duration gap indicates that the duration of our assets exceeds the 

duration of our liabilities. We disclose duration gap on a monthly basis under the caption “Interest Rate Risk Disclosures” in 

our Monthly Summary, which is available on our website and announced in a press release.

While our goal is to reduce the price sensitivity of our net portfolio to movements in interest rates, various factors can 

contribute to a duration gap that is either positive or negative. For example, changes in the market environment can increase 

or decrease the price sensitivity of our mortgage assets relative to the price sensitivity of our liabilities because of prepayment 

uncertainty associated with our assets. In a declining interest rate environment, prepayment rates tend to accelerate, thereby 

shortening the duration and average life of the fixed rate mortgage assets we hold in our net portfolio. Conversely, when 

interest rates increase, prepayment rates generally slow, which extends the duration and average life of our mortgage assets. 

Our debt and derivative instrument positions are used to manage the interest rate sensitivity of our retained mortgage 

portfolio and our investments in non-mortgage securities. As a result, the degree to which the interest rate sensitivity of our 

retained mortgage portfolio and our investments in non-mortgage securities is offset will be dependent upon, among other 

factors, the mix of funding and other risk management derivative instruments we use at any given point in time.

The market value sensitivities of our net portfolio are a function of both the duration and the convexity of our net portfolio. 

Duration provides a measure of the price sensitivity of a financial instrument to changes in interest rates while convexity 

reflects the degree to which the duration of the assets and liabilities in our net portfolio changes in response to a given change 

in interest rates. We use convexity measures to provide us with information about how quickly and by how much our net 

portfolio’s duration may change in different interest rate environments. The market value sensitivity of our net portfolio will 

depend on a number of factors, including the interest rate environment, modeling assumptions and the composition of assets 

and liabilities in our net portfolio, which vary over time. 

Results of Interest Rate Sensitivity Measures

The interest rate risk measures discussed below exclude the impact of changes in the fair value of our guaranty assets and 

liabilities resulting from changes in interest rates. We exclude our guaranty business from these sensitivity measures based on 

our current assumption that the guaranty fee income generated from future business activity will largely replace guaranty fee 

income lost due to mortgage prepayments.

Table 34 displays the pre-tax market value sensitivity of our net portfolio to changes in the level of interest rates and the slope 

of the yield curve as measured on the last day of each period presented. Table 34 also provides the daily average, minimum, 

maximum and standard deviation values for duration gap and for the most adverse market value impact on the net portfolio to 

changes in the level of interest rates and the slope of the yield curve for the three months ended September 30, 2016 and 

2015. 
69

The sensitivity measures displayed in Table 34, which we disclose on a quarterly basis pursuant to a disclosure commitment 

with FHFA, are an extension of our monthly sensitivity measures. There are three primary differences between our monthly 

sensitivity disclosure and the quarterly sensitivity disclosure presented below: (1) the quarterly disclosure is expanded to 

include the sensitivity results for larger rate level shocks of positive or negative 100 basis points; (2) the monthly disclosure 

reflects the estimated pre-tax impact on the market value of our net portfolio calculated based on a daily average, while the 

quarterly disclosure reflects the estimated pre-tax impact calculated based on the estimated financial position of our net 

portfolio and the market environment as of the last business day of the quarter; and (3) the monthly disclosure shows the 

most adverse pre-tax impact on the market value of our net portfolio from the hypothetical interest rate shocks, while the 

quarterly disclosure includes the estimated pre-tax impact of both up and down interest rate shocks.

Table 34: Interest Rate Sensitivity of Net Portfolio to Changes in Interest Rate Level and Slope of Yield Curve(1)

As of

September 30, 2016(2) December 31, 2015(2)

(Dollars in billions)

Rate level shock:

-100 basis points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (0.2) $ 0.4

-50 basis points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.1

+50 basis points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 (0.1)

+100 basis points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.1) (0.4)

Rate slope shock:

-25 basis points (flattening). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0

+25 basis points (steepening) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0

For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2016(3)

Duration

Gap

Rate Slope Shock

25 bps

Rate Level Shock

50 bps

Exposure

(In months) (Dollars in billions)

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 $ 0.0 $ 0.0

Minimum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.3) 0.0 0.0

Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 0.1 0.1

Standard deviation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.0 0.0

For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2015(3)

Duration

Gap

Rate Slope Shock 

25 bps

Rate Level Shock

50 bps

Exposure

(In months) (Dollars in billions)

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.2) $ 0.0 $ 0.0

Minimum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.8) 0.0 0.0

Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.7 0.1 0.1

Standard deviation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.3 0.0 0.0

__________

(1) Computed based on changes in U.S. LIBOR interest rates swap curve.

(2) Measured on the last day of each period presented.

(3) Computed based on daily values during the period presented.

The market value sensitivity of our net portfolio varies across a range of interest rate shocks depending upon the duration and 

convexity profile of our net portfolio. Because the effective duration gap of our net portfolio was close to zero months in the 

periods presented, the convexity exposure was the primary driver of the market value sensitivity as of September 30, 2016. In 

addition, the convexity exposure may result in similar market value sensitivities for positive and negative interest rate shocks 

of the same magnitude.
70

A majority of the interest rate risk associated with our mortgage-related securities and loans is hedged with our debt 

issuances, which include callable debt. We use derivatives to help manage the residual interest rate risk exposure between our 

assets and liabilities. Derivatives have enabled us to keep our interest rate risk exposure at consistently low levels in a wide 

range of interest-rate environments. Table 35 displays an example of how derivatives impacted the net market value exposure 

for a 50 basis point parallel interest rate shock.

Table 35: Derivative Impact on Interest Rate Risk (50 Basis Points)(1)

As of

September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

(Dollars in billions)

Before derivatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (1.5) $ (1.5)

After derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 (0.1)

Effect of derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.5 1.4

__________

(1) Measured on the last day of each period presented.

Liquidity Risk Management

See “MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity Management” in our 2015 Form 10-K and in this report for a 

discussion of how we manage liquidity risk.

Operational Risk Management

See “MD&A—Risk Management—Operational Risk Management” in our 2015 Form 10-K for information on operational 

risks that we face and our framework for managing operational risk.

IMPACT OF FUTURE ADOPTION OF NEW ACCOUNTING GUIDANCE

We identify and discuss the expected impact on our condensed consolidated financial statements of recently issued 

accounting guidance in “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.”

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report includes statements that constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of the 

Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (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,” “likely,” “may,” “will” or similar words. 

Among the forward-looking statements in this report are statements relating to: 

• Our expectation that we will remain profitable on an annual basis for the foreseeable future; however, certain 

factors, such as changes in interest rates or home prices, could result in significant volatility in our financial results 

from quarter to quarter or year to year;

• Our expectation that our future financial results also will be affected by a number of other factors, including: our 

guaranty fee rates; the volume of single-family mortgage originations in the future; the size, composition and quality 

of our retained mortgage portfolio and guaranty book of business; and economic and housing market conditions; 

• Our expectation of volatility from period to period in our financial results from a number of factors, particularly 

changes in market conditions that result in fluctuations in the estimated fair value of the financial instruments that 

we mark to market through our earnings;

• Our expectation that we will pay Treasury a senior preferred stock dividend of $3.0 billion for the fourth quarter of 

2016 by December 31, 2016;
71

• Our expectation that we will retain only a limited amount of any future net worth because we are required by the 

dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock and quarterly directives from our conservator to pay Treasury each 

quarter any dividends declared consisting of the amount, if any, by which our net worth as of the end of the 

immediately preceding fiscal quarter exceeds an applicable capital reserve amount;

• Our intention to continue to engage in credit risk transfer transactions on an ongoing basis, subject to market 

conditions;

• Our expectation that, over time, a larger portion of our single-family conventional guaranty book of business will be 

covered by credit risk transfer transactions;

• Our expectation that our single-family acquisitions will continue to have a strong overall credit risk profile given our 

current underwriting and eligibility standards and product design;

• Our expectation that incorporating trended credit data into Desktop Underwriter will improve the accuracy of 

Desktop Underwriter’s credit risk assessment and benefit borrowers who regularly pay down their revolving debt; 

• Our plan to expand our third-party validation service to borrower asset and employment data in December 2016;

• Our plan to update Desktop Underwriter and our Selling Guide in December 2016 to offer a property inspection 

waiver for certain refinance transactions that meet specified eligibility criteria;

• Our expectation that a majority of our loan acquisitions will continue to require an appraisal to establish market 

value;

• Our plan to implement representation and warranty relief with respect to borrower asset and employment data and 

appraised property value, as well as property inspection waivers, in December 2016;

• Our expectation that recent and future planned enhancements to Desktop Underwriter will help our lender customers 

originate mortgages with increased certainty, efficiency and lower costs, and also help increase access to credit for 

creditworthy borrowers;

• The expectation that nearly 364,000 new multifamily units will be completed this year;

• Our belief that the increase in the supply of new multifamily units will result in an increase in the national 

multifamily vacancy rate and a slowdown in rent growth next year;

• Our expectation that significant uncertainty regarding the future of our company and the housing finance system will 

continue;

• Our expectation that the guaranty fees we receive for managing the credit risk on loans underlying Fannie Mae MBS 

held by third parties will continue to account for an increasing portion of our net interest income;

• Our expectation that our guaranty fee revenues will increase over the next several years, as loans with lower 

guaranty fees liquidate from our book of business and are replaced with new loans with higher guaranty fees;

• Our expectation that continued decreases in the size of our retained mortgage portfolio will continue to negatively 

impact our net interest income and net revenues;

• Our expectation that increases in our guaranty fee revenues will partially offset the negative impact of the decline in 

our retained mortgage portfolio, and our expectation that the extent to which the positive impact of increased 

guaranty fee revenues will offset the negative impact of the decline in the size of our retained mortgage portfolio 

will depend on many factors, including: changes to guaranty fee pricing we may make in the future and their impact 

on our competitive environment and guaranty fee revenues; the size, composition and quality of our guaranty book 

of business; the life of the loans in our guaranty book of business; the size, composition and quality of our retained 

mortgage portfolio; economic and housing market conditions, including changes in interest rates; our market share; 

and legislative and regulatory changes;

• Our expectation that the single-family serious delinquency rate for the overall mortgage market will continue to 

decline, and our belief that the rate of this decline will be gradual;

• Our expectation that the national single-family serious delinquency rate will remain high compared with pre-housing 

crisis levels because it will take some time for the remaining delinquent loans originated prior to 2009 to work their 

way through the foreclosure process;

• Our forecast that total originations in the U.S. single-family mortgage market in 2016 will increase from 2015 levels 

by approximately 6% from an estimated $1.73 trillion in 2015 to $1.83 trillion in 2016;
72

• Our forecast that the amount of originations in the U.S. single family mortgage market that are refinancings will 

increase from an estimated $808 billion in 2015 to $820 billion in 2016; 

• Our expectation that the rate of home price appreciation in 2016 will be slightly higher than the rate in 2015;

• Our expectation of significant regional variation in the timing and rate of home price growth;

• Our expectation that our credit losses will be lower in 2016 than our 2015 credit losses;

• Our expectation that our loss reserves will decline further; 

• Our expectation that we will pay $187 million that we accrued in the first nine months of 2016, plus additional 

amounts to be accrued based on our new business purchases in the last three months of 2016, to specified HUD and 

Treasury funds in February 2017;

• Our expectation that the guaranty fees we collect and the expenses we incur under the TCCA will continue to 

increase in the future;

• Our plan to reduce our retained mortgage portfolio to no more than $305.4 billion as of December 31, 2016, in 

compliance with both our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury and FHFA’s request;

• Our expectation that we will 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 factors, 

including the limit on the amount of mortgage assets that we may own pursuant to the senior preferred stock 

purchase agreement with Treasury and FHFA’s portfolio plan requirements;

• Our belief that our liquidity contingency plan may be difficult or impossible to execute for a company of our size 

and in our circumstances;

• 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 expectation that we may also use proceeds from our mortgage assets to pay our debt obligations;

• Our expectation that we will not eliminate our deficit of core capital over statutory minimum capital;

• Our expectation that, as a result of allowing lenders to remit payment equal to our losses on loans after we have 

disposed of the related REO, our actual cash receipts relating to our outstanding repurchase requests will be 

significantly lower than the unpaid principal balance of the loans;

• Our belief that we have taken appropriate steps to mitigate the risk associated with providing lenders with relief 

from repurchasing certain loans for breaches of certain representations and warranties;

• Our expectation that the credit protection provided by the first loss and mezzanine loss tranches in CAS transactions 

would absorb all of the losses that would be incurred on these loans in a stressed credit environment, such as a 

severe or prolonged economic downturn;

• Our expectation that the typical insurance layer in a CIRT transaction provides coverage for losses on the pool that 

are likely to occur only in a stressed economic environment;

• Our plan to continue to offer our traditional CIRT transactions that cover existing single-family loans in our 

portfolio;

• FHFA’s expectation that single-family credit risk transfers will continue to be an ongoing conservatorship 

requirement;

• Our expectation that our acquisition of Alt-A mortgage 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 the serious delinquency rates for single-family loans acquired in more recent years will be 

higher after the loans have aged, but will not approach the levels of the September 30, 2016 serious delinquency 

rates of loans acquired in 2005 through 2008;

• Our expectation that the ultimate performance of all our loans will be affected by borrower behavior, public policy 

and macroeconomic trends, including unemployment, the economy and home prices;

• Our expectation that loans we acquire under Refi Plus and HARP will perform better than the loans they replace 

because they should either reduce the borrowers’ monthly payments or provide more stable terms than the 

borrowers’ old loans (for example, by refinancing into a mortgage with a fixed interest rate instead of an adjustable 

rate);
73

• Our expectation that the volume of refinancings under HARP will continue to remain a small percentage of our 

acquisitions between now and the program’s expiration, due to the small population of borrowers with loans that 

have high LTV ratios who are willing to refinance and would benefit from refinancing; 

• Our expectation that our institutional credit risk exposure to derivatives clearing organizations and certain of their 

members may continue to increase in the future if cleared derivative contracts comprise a larger percentage of our 

derivative instruments;

• Our assumption that the guaranty fee income generated from future business activity will largely replace guaranty 

fee income lost due to mortgage prepayments;

• Our expectation that, as a result of our various loss mitigation and foreclosure prevention efforts, a portion of the 

loans in the process of formal foreclosure proceedings will not ultimately foreclose;

• Our plan to complete additional nonperforming loan sales in the future;

• Our expectation that our single-family serious delinquency rate will continue to decrease;

• Our expectation that trial modifications under the new principal reduction modification program will continue 

through the first quarter of 2017, converting to permanent modifications between now and the second quarter of 

2017;

• Our expectation that the level of our multifamily foreclosure activity will remain low as the national multifamily 

sector continues to exhibit stability;

• Our expectation that we will not remediate the material weakness relating to our disclosure controls and procedures 

while we are under conservatorship; 

• Our expectation that Congress will continue to hold hearings and consider legislation on the future status of Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac, including proposals that would result in Fannie Mae’s liquidation or dissolution; 

• Our belief that continued federal government support of our business, as well as our status as a GSE, are essential to 

maintaining our access to debt funding and that changes or perceived changes in federal government support of our 

business or our status as a GSE could materially and adversely affect our liquidity, financial condition and results of 

operations; and

• Our expectation that we will recognize the impact of the new impairment guidance issued in June 2016 that is 

described in “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies—New Accounting Guidance” through a 

cumulative-effect adjustment to retained earnings as of the beginning of the year of adoption.

Forward-looking statements reflect our management’s or in some cases FHFA’s expectations, forecasts 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; the timing and level of, as well as regional variation in, home price 

changes; changes in interest rates, including negative interest rates; changes in unemployment rates and other macroeconomic 

and housing market variables; our future guaranty fee pricing and the impact of that pricing on our competitive environment 

and guaranty fee revenues; challenges we face in retaining and hiring qualified executives and other employees; our future 

serious delinquency rates; 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; actions we may be required to take by FHFA, in 

its role as our conservator or as our regulator, such as changes in the type of business we do or implementation of a single 

security; limitations on our business imposed by FHFA, in its role as our conservator or as our regulator; our future objectives 

and activities in support of those objectives, including actions we may take to reach additional underserved creditworthy 

borrowers; a decrease in our credit ratings; limitations on our ability to access the debt capital markets; disruptions in the 

housing and credit markets; significant changes in modification and foreclosure activity; the volume and pace of future 

nonperforming loan sales and their impact on our results and serious delinquency rates; changes in borrower behavior; the 

effectiveness of our loss mitigation strategies, management of our REO inventory and pursuit of contractual remedies; 

defaults by one or more institutional counterparties; resolution or settlement agreements we may enter into with our 

counterparties; our need to rely on third parties to fully achieve some of our corporate objectives; our reliance on mortgage 

servicers; changes in GAAP; guidance by the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”); future changes to our 
74

accounting policies; changes in the fair value of our assets and liabilities; operational control weaknesses; our reliance on 

models; future updates to our models, including the assumptions used by these models; the level and volatility of interest 

rates and credit spreads; changes in the fiscal and monetary policies of the Federal Reserve, including any change in the 

Federal Reserve’s policy towards the reinvestment of principal payments of mortgage-backed securities or any future sales of 

such securities; changes in the structure and regulation of the financial services industry; credit availability; global political 

risks; natural disasters, environmental disasters, terrorist attacks, pandemics or other major disruptive events; information 

security breaches; and those factors described in “Risk Factors” in this report and in our 2015 Form 10-K, as well as the 

factors described in “Executive Summary—Outlook—Factors that Could Cause Actual Results to be Materially Different 

from Our Estimates and Expectations” in this report. 

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” in our 2015 Form 10-K and in this report. 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. 
75

Item 1. Financial Statements

FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets — (Unaudited)

(Dollars in millions, except share amounts)

As of

September 30, December 31,

2016 2015

ASSETS

Cash and cash equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 26,559 $ 14,674

Restricted cash (includes $37,856 and $25,865, respectively, related to consolidated trusts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42,926 30,879

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell or similar arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,350 27,350

Investments in securities:

Trading, at fair value (includes $1,191 and $135, respectively, pledged as collateral) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,547 39,908

Available-for-sale, at fair value (includes $110 and $285, respectively, related to consolidated trusts) . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,865 20,230

Total investments in securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50,412 60,138

Mortgage loans:

Loans held for sale, at lower of cost or fair value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,405 5,361

Loans held for investment, at amortized cost:

Of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216,958 233,054

Of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,851,304 2,809,180

Total loans held for investment (includes $12,914 and $14,075, respectively, at fair value) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,068,262 3,042,234

Allowance for loan losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (22,706) (27,951)

Total loans held for investment, net of allowance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,045,556 3,014,283

Total mortgage loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,048,961 3,019,644

Deferred tax assets, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,101 37,187

Accrued interest receivable (includes $7,032 and $6,974, respectively, related to consolidated trusts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,728 7,726

Acquired property, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,041 6,766

Other assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,864 17,553

Total assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,255,942 $ 3,221,917

LIABILITIES AND EQUITY

Liabilities:

Accrued interest payable (includes $8,199 and $8,194, respectively, related to consolidated trusts). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9,512 $ 9,794

Debt:

Of Fannie Mae (includes $10,460 and $11,133, respectively, at fair value). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351,568 386,135

Of consolidated trusts (includes $35,453 and $23,609, respectively, at fair value) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,881,545 2,811,536

Other liabilities (includes $392 and $448, respectively, related to consolidated trusts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,141 10,393

Total liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,251,766 3,217,858

Commitments and contingencies (Note 16) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — —

Fannie Mae stockholders’ equity:

Senior preferred stock, 1,000,000 shares issued and outstanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117,149 117,149

Preferred stock, 700,000,000 shares are authorized—555,374,922 shares issued and outstanding. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,130 19,130

Common stock, no par value, no maximum authorization—1,308,762,703 shares issued and 1,158,082,750 shares

outstanding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

687 687

Accumulated deficit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (126,312) (126,942)

Accumulated other comprehensive income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 923 1,407

Treasury stock, at cost, 150,679,953 shares . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7,401) (7,401)

Total Fannie Mae stockholders’ equity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,176 4,030

Noncontrolling interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 29

Total equity (See Note 1: Impact of U.S. Government Support for information on our dividend obligation to 

Treasury). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,176 4,059

Total liabilities and equity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,255,942 $ 3,221,917

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
76

FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income — (Unaudited)

(Dollars and shares in millions, except per share amounts)

For the Three Months For the Nine Months

Ended September 30, Ended September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015

Interest income:

Trading securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 140 $ 99 $ 388 $ 330

Available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 261 507 931

Mortgage loans (includes $23,254 and $24,537, respectively, for the three months ended and

$71,746 and $73,426, respectively, for the nine months ended related to consolidated trusts) . 25,611 26,980 78,828 80,706

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 37 160 104

Total interest income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,951 27,377 79,883 82,071

Interest expense:

Short-term debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56 37 164 99

Long-term debt (includes $18,814 and $19,891, respectively, for the three months ended and

$58,993 and $59,934, respectively, for the nine months ended related to consolidated trusts) . 20,460 21,752 64,229 65,640

Total interest expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,516 21,789 64,393 65,739

Net interest income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,435 5,588 15,490 16,332

Benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 673 1,550 3,458 1,050

Net interest income after benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,108 7,138 18,948 17,382

Investment gains, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467 299 934 1,155

Fair value losses, net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (491) (2,589) (4,971) (1,902)

Fee and other income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 259 552 1,123

Non-interest income (loss). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 (2,031) (3,485) 376

Administrative expenses:

Salaries and employee benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 317 1,017 999

Professional services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237 219 684 741

Occupancy expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 43 136 129

Other administrative expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 373 190 495

Total administrative expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 661 952 2,027 2,364

Foreclosed property expense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110 497 507 1,152

Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (“TCCA”) fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465 413 1,358 1,192

Other expenses, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300 215 818 412

Total expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,536 2,077 4,710 5,120

Income before federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,723 3,030 10,753 12,638

Provision for federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,527) (1,070) (3,475) (4,150)

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,196 1,960 7,278 8,488

Other comprehensive income (loss):

Changes in unrealized gains on available-for-sale securities, net of reclassification adjustments

and taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (205) (177) (478) (548)

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) 430 (6) 428

Total other comprehensive income (loss). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (207) 253 (484) (120)

Total comprehensive income attributable to Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,989 $ 2,213 $ 6,794 $ 8,368

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,196 $ 1,960 $ 7,278 $ 8,488

Dividends distributed or available for distribution to senior preferred stockholder (Note 10) . . . . . (2,977) (2,202) (6,765) (8,357)

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders (Note 10) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 219 $ (242) $ 513 $ 131

Earnings (loss) per share:

Basic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.04 $ (0.04) $ 0.09 $ 0.02

Diluted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.04 (0.04) 0.09 0.02

Weighted-average common shares outstanding:

Basic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,762 5,762 5,762 5,762

Diluted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,893 5,762 5,893 5,893

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
77

FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

Condensed Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows — (Unaudited)

(Dollars in millions)

For the Nine Months

Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Net cash used in operating activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (4,749) $ (6,375)

Cash flows provided by investing activities:

Proceeds from maturities and paydowns of trading securities held for investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,282 633

Proceeds from sales of trading securities held for investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,405 1,028

Proceeds from maturities and paydowns of available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,355 3,477

Proceeds from sales of available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,481 6,919

Purchases of loans held for investment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (168,729) (146,577)

Proceeds from repayments of loans acquired as held for investment of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,413 19,145

Proceeds from sales of loans acquired as held for investment of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,209 2,315

Proceeds from repayments and sales of loans acquired as held for investment of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . 395,561 376,169

Net change in restricted cash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (12,047) 2,261

Advances to lenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (96,797) (92,345)

Proceeds from disposition of acquired property and preforeclosure sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,478 16,306

Net change in federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell or similar arrangements. 9,000 4,350

Other, net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (305) 103

Net cash provided by investing activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176,306 193,784

Cash flows used in financing activities:

Proceeds from issuance of debt of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 736,239 337,748

Payments to redeem debt of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (772,380) (381,487)

Proceeds from issuance of debt of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290,146 259,254

Payments to redeem debt of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (406,968) (397,025)

Payments of cash dividends on senior preferred stock to Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6,647) (8,075)

Other, net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (62) 68

Net cash used in financing activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (159,672) (189,517)

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,885 (2,108)

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,674 22,023

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 26,559 $ 19,915

Cash paid during the period for:

Interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 78,281 $ 78,584

Income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,141 470

See Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

(UNAUDITED)

78

1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Organization

We are a stockholder-owned corporation organized and existing under the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act 

(the “Charter Act” or our “charter”). We are a government-sponsored enterprise (“GSE”) and we are subject to government 

oversight and regulation. Our regulators include the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”), the U.S. Department of 

Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and the U.S. 

Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”). The U.S. government does not guarantee our securities or other obligations.

Conservatorship

On September 7, 2008, the Secretary of the Treasury and the Director of FHFA announced several actions taken by Treasury 

and FHFA regarding Fannie Mae, which included: (1) placing us in conservatorship, and (2) the execution of a senior 

preferred stock purchase agreement by our conservator, on our behalf, and Treasury, pursuant to which we issued to Treasury 

both senior preferred stock and a warrant to purchase common stock.

Under the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by the Federal Housing 

Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008 (together, the “GSE Act”), the conservator immediately succeeded to (1) all rights, 

titles, powers and privileges of Fannie Mae, and of any stockholder, 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.

The conservatorship has no specified termination date and there continues to be significant uncertainty regarding our future, 

including how long we will continue to exist in our current form, the extent of our role in the market, how long we will be in 

conservatorship, 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 and whether we will continue to exist following conservatorship. 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 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 into receivership at his discretion at any time for other reasons set forth in the GSE Act, 

including if we are critically undercapitalized or if we are undercapitalized and have no reasonable prospect of becoming 

adequately capitalized. 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. We are not aware of any plans of 

FHFA to fundamentally change our business model or capital structure in the near term.

Impact of U.S. Government Support

We continue to rely on support from Treasury to eliminate any net worth deficits we may experience in the future, which 

would otherwise trigger our being placed into receivership. Based on consideration of all the relevant conditions and events 

affecting our operations, including our reliance on the U.S. government, we continue to operate as a going concern and in 

accordance with our delegation of authority from FHFA.

We believe that continued federal government support of our business, as well as our status as a GSE, are essential to 

maintaining our access to debt funding. Changes or perceived changes in federal government support of our business or our 

status as a GSE could materially and adversely affect our liquidity, financial condition and results of operations.

Pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, Treasury has committed to provide us with funding to help us 

maintain a positive net worth thereby avoiding the mandatory receivership trigger described above. We have received a total 

of $116.1 billion from Treasury pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement as of September 30, 2016. The 

aggregate liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock, including the initial aggregate liquidation preference of $1.0 

billion, was $117.1 billion as of September 30, 2016. As of September 30, 2016, the amount of remaining funding available 

to us under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement was $117.6 billion.

Based on the terms of the senior preferred stock, we paid Treasury a dividend of $2.9 billion on September 30, 2016 based on 

our net worth of $4.1 billion as of June 30, 2016 less the applicable capital reserve amount of $1.2 billion. We expect to pay 

Treasury an additional dividend of $3.0 billion by December 31, 2016 based on our net worth of $4.2 billion as of 

September 30, 2016 less the applicable capital reserve amount of $1.2 billion. The capital reserve amount was $1.8 billion for 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

79

dividend periods in 2015. The capital reserve amount will continue to be reduced by $600 million each year until it reaches 

zero on January 1, 2018.

Basis of Presentation

The accompanying unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with 

accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (“GAAP”) for interim financial information and 

with the SEC’s instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the 

information and note disclosures required by GAAP for complete consolidated financial statements. In the opinion of 

management, all adjustments of a normal recurring nature considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. 

The accompanying condensed consolidated financial statements include our accounts as well as the accounts of other entities 

in which we have a controlling financial interest. All intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated. To 

conform to our current period presentation, we have reclassified certain amounts reported in our prior periods’ condensed 

consolidated financial statements. Results for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 may not necessarily be indicative of 

the results for the year ending December 31, 2016. The unaudited interim condensed consolidated financial statements as of 

and for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 should be read in conjunction with our audited consolidated financial 

statements and related notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (“2015

Form 10-K”), filed with the SEC on February 19, 2016.

Regulatory Capital

FHFA stated that, during conservatorship, our existing statutory and FHFA-directed regulatory capital requirements will not 

be binding and FHFA will not issue quarterly capital classifications. We submit capital reports to FHFA and FHFA monitors 

our capital levels. The deficit of core capital over statutory minimum capital was $138.9 billion as of September 30, 2016 and 

$139.7 billion as of December 31, 2015. 

Under the terms of the senior preferred stock, we are required to pay Treasury a dividend each quarter, when, as and if 

declared, equal to the excess of our net worth as of the end of the preceding quarter over an applicable capital reserve 

amount. The Director of FHFA has directed us to make dividend payments on the senior preferred stock on a quarterly basis. 

Therefore, we do not expect to eliminate our deficit of core capital over statutory minimum capital.

Related Parties

As a result of our issuance to Treasury of the warrant to purchase shares of Fannie Mae common stock equal to 79.9% of the 

total number of shares of Fannie Mae common stock, we and Treasury are deemed related parties. As of September 30, 2016, 

Treasury held an investment in our senior preferred stock with an aggregate liquidation preference of $117.1 billion. FHFA’s 

control of both us and Freddie Mac has caused us, FHFA and Freddie Mac to be deemed related parties. In 2013, Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac established Common Securitization Solutions, LLC (“CSS”), a jointly owned limited liability company to 

operate a common securitization platform; therefore, CSS is deemed a related party.

Transactions with Treasury

Our administrative expenses were reduced by $14 million and $18 million for the three months ended September 30, 2016 

and 2015, respectively, and $45 million and $50 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, 

respectively, due to reimbursements from Treasury and Freddie Mac for expenses incurred as program administrator for 

Treasury’s Home Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP”) and other initiatives under Treasury’s Making Home 

Affordable Program. 

During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, we made tax payments of $531 million and $1.1 billion, 

respectively, to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), a bureau of Treasury. We made tax payments of $100 million and $470 

million during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015. We received no refund from the IRS during the nine 

months ended September 30, 2016. We received a refund of $277 million from the IRS during the nine months ended 

September 30, 2015 for income tax adjustments related to tax years 2004 through 2010. 

In 2009, we entered into a memorandum of understanding with Treasury, FHFA and Freddie Mac pursuant to which we 

agreed to provide assistance to state and local housing finance agencies (“HFAs”) through different programs, including a 

new issue bond (“NIB”) program. As of September 30, 2016, under the NIB program, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had $6.5 

billion outstanding of pass-through securities backed by single-family and multifamily housing bonds issued by HFAs, which 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

80

is less than 35% of the total original principal under the program, the amount of losses that Treasury would bear. Accordingly, 

we do not have a potential risk of loss under the NIB program.

The fee revenue and expense related to the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (“TCCA”) are recorded in 

“Mortgage loans interest income” and “TCCA fees,” respectively, in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and 

comprehensive income. We recognized $465 million and $413 million in TCCA fees during the three months ended 

September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and $1.4 billion and $1.2 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 

and 2015, respectively, of which $465 million had not been remitted to Treasury as of September 30, 2016.

We incurred expenses in connection with certain funding obligations under the GSE Act, a portion of which is attributable to 

Treasury’s Capital Magnet and HOPE Funds. These expenses, recognized in “Other expenses, net” in our condensed 

consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, were measured as the product of 4.2 basis points and the 

unpaid principal balance of our total new business purchases for the respective period. We recognized $40 million and $56 

million in other expenses in connection with Treasury’s Capital Magnet and HOPE Funds for the three months ended 

September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and $96 million and $168 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 

and 2015, respectively, of which $96 million resulting from 2016 purchases had not been remitted as of September 30, 2016.

In addition to the transactions with Treasury mentioned above, we also purchase and sell Treasury securities in the normal 

course of business. As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we held Treasury securities with a fair value of $31.3 

billion and $29.5 billion, respectively, and accrued interest receivable of $28 million and $15 million, respectively. We 

recognized interest income on these securities held by us of $40 million and $8 million for the three months ended September 

30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and $105 million and $17 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, 

respectively.

Transactions with Freddie Mac

As of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, we held Freddie Mac mortgage-related securities with a fair value of $1.4 

billion and $5.6 billion, respectively, and accrued interest receivable of $5 million and $22 million, respectively. We 

recognized interest income on these securities held by us of $19 million and $55 million for the three months ended 

September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and $100 million and $174 million for the nine months ended September 30, 

2016 and 2015, respectively. In addition, Freddie Mac may be an investor in variable interest entities (“VIEs”) that we have 

consolidated, and we may be an investor in VIEs that Freddie Mac has consolidated.

Transactions with FHFA

The GSE Act authorizes FHFA to establish an annual assessment for regulated entities, including Fannie Mae, which is 

payable on a semi-annual basis (April and October), for FHFA’s costs and expenses, as well as to maintain FHFA’s working 

capital. We recognized FHFA assessment fees, which are recorded in “Administrative expenses” in our condensed 

consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, of $28 million for the three months ended September 30, 

2016 and 2015, and $84 million for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015.

Transactions with CSS

In connection with our jointly owned company with Freddie Mac, we contributed $23 million and $17 million for the three 

months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, and $88 million and $47 million for the nine months ended 

September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, of capital into CSS. No other transactions outside of normal business activities 

have occurred between us and CSS during the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015.

Use of Estimates

Preparing condensed consolidated financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires management to make estimates 

and assumptions that affect our reported amounts of assets and liabilities, and disclosure of contingent assets and liabilities as 

of the dates of our condensed consolidated financial statements, as well as our reported amounts of revenues and expenses 

during the reporting periods. Management has made significant estimates in a variety of areas including, but not limited to, 

valuation of certain financial instruments and other assets and liabilities and allowance for loan losses. Actual results could be 

different from these estimates.

On January 1, 2015, we adopted regulatory guidance issued by FHFA which prescribes, among other things, guidance on 

when a loan should be charged off. This change in estimate resulted in the recognition on January 1, 2015 of (1) $1.8 billion

in charge-offs of held for investment loans, (2) $724 million in charge-offs of preforeclosure property taxes and insurance 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

81

receivable and (3) a reduction to our allowance for loan losses and our allowance for preforeclosure property taxes and 

insurance receivable in amounts equal to charge-offs recognized in connection with held for investment loans and 

preforeclosure property taxes and insurance receivable.

For the majority of our delinquent single-family loans, we charge off the loan at the date of foreclosure or other liquidation 

event (such as a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or a short sale). For a subset of delinquent single-family loans, we charge off the 

portion of the loans that is deemed uncollectible prior to foreclosure when the loans have been delinquent for a specified 

length of time and meet specified mark-to-market loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratios. We continue to enhance our data collection 

and analysis efforts to further refine our loss estimates as we obtain incremental information on the performance of our loans.

Debt

We issue debt in the form of credit risk transfer notes under the Connecticut Avenue Securities (“CAS”) program where 

repayment of the debt is linked to a reference portfolio of mortgage loans. We account for CAS debt issued in 2016 at 

amortized cost. As credit events occur and the principal balance of the CAS debt is legally reduced, we recognize an 

extinguishment gain. We elected the fair value option on CAS debt that was issued prior to 2016.

New Accounting Guidance

Effective January 1, 2016, we adopted guidance regarding consolidation of legal entities such as limited partnerships, limited 

liability corporations and securitization structures. The impact of the adoption was not material to our condensed consolidated 

financial statements.

In February 2016, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued guidance on leases. The guidance clarified the 

definition of a lease and requires lessees to recognize on the balance sheet a right-of-use asset, representing its right to use the 

underlying asset for the lease term, and a corresponding lease liability for all leases with terms greater than 12 months. This 

guidance supersedes the existing lease guidance; however, we must continue to classify leases to determine how to recognize 

lease-related expense in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. The new guidance 

is effective for us on January 1, 2019. We have evaluated this guidance and determined it will not have a material impact on 

our condensed consolidated financial statements. 

In June 2016, FASB issued guidance that changes the impairment model for most financial assets and certain other 

instruments. For loans, held-to-maturity debt securities and other financial assets recorded at amortized cost, entities will be 

required to use a new forward-looking “expected loss” model that will replace today’s “incurred loss” model and generally 

will result in the earlier recognition of allowances for losses. The guidance is effective on January 1, 2020 with early adoption 

permitted on January 1, 2019. We will recognize the impact of the new guidance through a cumulative-effect adjustment to 

retained earnings as of the beginning of the year of adoption. We are currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on our 

condensed consolidated financial statements and the timing of our adoption.

In August 2016, FASB issued guidance regarding classification of certain items within the statement of cash flows in order to 

reduce diversity in practice with respect to cash flow classifications. The guidance is effective for us on January 1, 2018 and 

will be applied retrospectively for each period presented. We are currently evaluating the impact of this guidance on our 

condensed consolidated financial statements.

2. Consolidations and Transfers of Financial Assets

We have interests in various entities that are considered to be VIEs. The primary types of entities are securitization trusts 

guaranteed by us via lender swap and portfolio securitization transactions and mortgage-backed trusts that were not created 

by us, as well as housing partnerships that are established to finance the acquisition, construction, development or 

rehabilitation of affordable multifamily and single-family housing. These interests include investments in securities issued by 

VIEs, such as Fannie Mae MBS created pursuant to our securitization transactions and our guaranty to the entity. We 

consolidate the substantial majority of our single-class securitization trusts because our role as guarantor and master servicer 

provides us with the power to direct matters (primarily the servicing of mortgage loans) that impact the credit risk to which 

we are exposed. In contrast, we do not consolidate single-class securitization trusts when other organizations have the power 

to direct these activities.

We continually assess whether we are the primary beneficiary of the VIEs with which we are involved and therefore may 

consolidate or deconsolidate a VIE through the duration of our involvement. Examples of certain events that may change 

whether or not we consolidate the VIE include a change in the design of the entity or a change in our ownership in the entity 

such that we no longer hold substantially all of the certificates issued by a multi-class securitization trust. As of 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

82

September 30, 2016, we consolidated certain VIEs that were not consolidated as of December 31, 2015. As a result of 

consolidating these entities, which had combined total assets of $154 million in unpaid principal balance as of September 30, 

2016, we derecognized our investment in these entities and recognized the assets and liabilities of the consolidated entities at 

fair value. As of September 30, 2016, we also deconsolidated certain VIEs that were consolidated as of December 31, 2015. 

As a result of deconsolidating these entities, which had combined total assets of $5.3 billion in unpaid principal balance as of 

December 31, 2015, we derecognized the assets and liabilities of the entities and recognized at fair value our retained 

interests as securities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets.

Unconsolidated VIEs

We do not consolidate VIEs when we are not deemed to be the primary beneficiary. Our unconsolidated VIEs include 

securitization trusts and limited partnerships. The following table displays the carrying amount and classification of our assets 

and liabilities that relate to our involvement with unconsolidated mortgage-backed trusts.

As of

September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Assets and liabilities recorded in our condensed consolidated balance sheets related to

mortgage-backed trusts:

Assets:

Trading securities:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,793 $ 4,704

Non-Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,336 5,596

Total trading securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,129 10,300

Available-for-sale securities:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,601 3,936

Non-Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,106 14,644

Total available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,707 18,580

Other assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 100

Other liabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (450) (827)

Net carrying amount. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 17,453 $ 28,153

Our maximum exposure to loss generally represents the greater of our recorded investment in the entity or the unpaid 

principal balance of the assets covered by our guaranty. However, our securities issued by Fannie Mae multi-class 

resecuritization trusts that are not consolidated do not give rise to any additional exposure to loss as we already consolidate 

the underlying collateral. The maximum exposure to loss related to unconsolidated mortgage-backed trusts was 

approximately $24 billion and $34 billion as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. The total assets of 

our unconsolidated mortgage-backed trusts were approximately $170 billion and $220 billion as of September 30, 2016 and 

December 31, 2015, respectively.

The maximum exposure to loss for our unconsolidated limited partnerships and similar legal entities, which consist of lowincome housing tax credit investments, community investments and other entities, was $123 million and the related carrying 

value was $92 million as of September 30, 2016. As of December 31, 2015, the maximum exposure to loss was $12 million

and the related carrying value was a deficit of $24 million. The total assets of these limited partnership investments were $4.0 

billion and $4.9 billion as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.

The unpaid principal balance of our multifamily loan portfolio was $221.9 billion as of September 30, 2016. As our lending 

relationship does not provide us with a controlling financial interest in the borrower entity, we do not consolidate these 

borrowers regardless of their status as either a VIE or a voting interest entity. We have excluded these entities from our VIE 

disclosures. However, the disclosures we have provided in “Note 3, Mortgage Loans,” “Note 4, Allowance for Loan Losses” 

and “Note 6, Financial Guarantees” with respect to this population are consistent with the FASB’s stated objectives for the 

disclosures related to unconsolidated VIEs.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

83

Transfers of Financial Assets

We issue Fannie Mae MBS through portfolio securitization transactions by transferring pools of mortgage loans or mortgagerelated securities to one or more trusts or special purpose entities. We are considered to be the transferor when we transfer 

assets from our own retained mortgage portfolio in a portfolio securitization transaction. For the three months ended 

September 30, 2016 and 2015, the unpaid principal balance of portfolio securitizations was $76.1 billion and $55.4 billion, 

respectively. For the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, the unpaid principal balance of portfolio 

securitizations was $188.7 billion and $166.3 billion, respectively. 

We retain interests from the transfer and sale of mortgage-related securities to unconsolidated single-class and multi-class 

portfolio securitization trusts. As of September 30, 2016, the unpaid principal balance of retained interests was $4.5 billion

and its related fair value was $6.0 billion. The unpaid principal balance of retained interests was $5.5 billion and its related 

fair value was $6.8 billion as of December 31, 2015. For the three months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, the principal 

and interest received on retained interests was $284 million and $273 million, respectively. For the nine months ended 

September 30, 2016 and 2015, the principal and interest received on retained interests was $907 million and $919 million, 

respectively.

Managed Loans

Managed loans are on-balance sheet mortgage loans, as well as mortgage loans that we have securitized in unconsolidated 

portfolio securitization trusts. The unpaid principal balance of securitized loans in unconsolidated portfolio securitization 

trusts, which are primarily loans that are guaranteed or insured, in whole or in part, by the U.S. government, was $1.4 billion

and $1.6 billion as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. For information on our on-balance sheet 

mortgage loans, see “Note 3, Mortgage Loans.”

3. Mortgage Loans

We own single-family mortgage loans, which are secured by four or fewer residential dwelling units, and multifamily 

mortgage loans, which are secured by five or more residential dwelling units. We classify these loans as either held for 

investment (“HFI”) or held for sale (“HFS”). We report the carrying value of HFI loans at the unpaid principal balance, net of 

unamortized premiums and discounts, other cost basis adjustments, and an allowance for loan losses. We report the carrying 

value of HFS loans at the lower of cost or fair value and record valuation changes in “Investment gains, net” in our 

condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. We define the recorded investment of HFI loans 

as unpaid principal balance, net of unamortized premiums and discounts, other cost basis adjustments, and accrued interest 

receivable.

For purposes of the single-family mortgage loan disclosures below, we define “primary” class as mortgage loans that are not 

included in other loan classes; “government” class as mortgage loans guaranteed or insured, in whole or in part, by the U.S. 

government or one of its agencies, that are not Alt-A; and “other” class as loans with higher-risk characteristics, such as 

interest-only loans and negative-amortizing loans, that are neither government nor Alt-A.

The following table displays the carrying value of our mortgage loans.

As of

September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

Of Fannie

Mae

Of

Consolidated

Trusts Total

Of Fannie

Mae

Of

Consolidated

Trusts Total

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 221,384 $ 2,586,398 $ 2,807,782 $ 238,237 $ 2,574,174 $ 2,812,411

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,678 211,182 221,860 13,099 185,243 198,342

Total unpaid principal balance of

mortgage loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 232,062 2,797,580 3,029,642 251,336 2,759,417 3,010,753

Cost basis and fair value adjustments, net . . (11,707) 53,732 42,025 (12,939) 49,781 36,842

Allowance for loan losses for loans held for

investment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (21,858) (848) (22,706) (26,510) (1,441) (27,951)

Total mortgage loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 198,497 $ 2,850,464 $ 3,048,961 $ 211,887 $ 2,807,757 $ 3,019,644
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

84

During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, we redesignated loans with a carrying value of $652 million

and $2.3 billion, respectively, from HFI to HFS. During the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, we 

redesignated loans with a carrying value of $1.3 billion and $5.9 billion, respectively, from HFI to HFS. We sold loans with 

an unpaid principal balance of $1.6 billion and $4.2 billion during the three and nine months ended September 30, 2016, 

respectively. We sold loans with an unpaid principal balance of $1.9 billion and $2.5 billion during the three and nine months 

ended September 30, 2015, respectively. 

The recorded investment of single-family mortgage loans for which formal foreclosure proceedings are in process was $19.5 

billion and $25.6 billion as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. As a result of our various loss 

mitigation and foreclosure prevention efforts, we expect that a portion of the loans in the process of formal foreclosure 

proceedings will not ultimately foreclose.

Nonaccrual Loans

We discontinue accruing interest on loans when we believe collectibility of principal or interest is not reasonably assured, 

which for a single-family loan we have determined, based on our historical experience, to be when the loan becomes two

months or more past due according to its contractual terms. Interest previously accrued but not collected is reversed through 

interest income at the date a loan is placed on nonaccrual status. We return a non-modified single-family loan to accrual 

status at the point that the borrower brings the loan current. We return a modified single-family loan to accrual status at the 

point that the borrower successfully makes all required payments during the trial period (generally three to four months) and 

the modification is made permanent. We place a multifamily loan on nonaccrual status when the loan becomes three months 

or more past due according to its contractual terms or is deemed to be individually impaired, unless the loan is well secured 

such that collectibility of principal and accrued interest is reasonably assured. We return a multifamily loan to accrual status 

when the borrower cures the delinquency of the loan or we otherwise determine that the loan is well secured such that 

collectibility is reasonably assured.

Aging Analysis

The following tables display an aging analysis of the total recorded investment in our HFI mortgage loans by portfolio 

segment and class, excluding loans for which we have elected the fair value option.

As of September 30, 2016

30 - 59 

Days 

Delinquent

60 - 89

Days

Delinquent

Seriously 

Delinquent(1)

Total

Delinquent Current Total

Recorded

Investment

in Loans

90 Days or

More

Delinquent

and

Accruing

Interest

Recorded

Investment

in

Nonaccrual

Loans

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 29,741 $ 7,505 $ 21,501 $ 58,747 $ 2,625,085 $ 2,683,832 $ 24 $ 32,806

Government(2). . . . . . . . 54 23 264 341 37,698 38,039 264 —

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,706 1,131 4,607 9,444 76,207 85,651 2 6,386

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,401 450 1,654 3,505 27,778 31,283 6 2,337

Total single-family . . . 34,902 9,109 28,026 72,037 2,766,768 2,838,805 296 41,529

Multifamily(3). . . . . . . . . . 25 N/A 163 188 223,917 224,105 — 498

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 34,927 $ 9,109 $ 28,189 $ 72,225 $ 2,990,685 $ 3,062,910 $ 296 $ 42,027
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

85

As of December 31, 2015

30 - 59 

Days 

Delinquent

60 - 89

Days

Delinquent

Seriously 

Delinquent(1)

Total

Delinquent Current Total

Recorded

Investment

in Loans

90 Days or

More

Delinquent

and

Accruing

Interest

Recorded 

Investment 

in 

Nonaccrual 

Loans

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 29,154 $ 7,937 $ 26,346 $ 63,437 $ 2,598,756 $ 2,662,193 $ 46 $ 34,216

Government(2). . . . . . . . 58 24 291 373 40,461 40,834 291 —

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,085 1,272 6,141 11,498 84,603 96,101 6 7,407

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,494 484 2,160 4,138 32,272 36,410 6 2,632

Total single-family . . . 34,791 9,717 34,938 79,446 2,756,092 2,835,538 349 44,255

Multifamily(3). . . . . . . . . . 23 N/A 123 146 200,028 200,174 — 591

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 34,814 $ 9,717 $ 35,061 $ 79,592 $ 2,956,120 $ 3,035,712 $ 349 $ 44,846

__________

(1) Single-family seriously delinquent loans are loans that are 90 days or more past due or in the foreclosure process. Multifamily seriously 

delinquent loans are loans that are 60 days or more past due.

(2) Primarily consists of reverse mortgages, which due to their nature, are not aged and are included in the current column.

(3) Multifamily loans 60-89 days delinquent are included in the seriously delinquent column.

Credit Quality Indicators

The following table displays the total recorded investment in our single-family HFI loans by class and credit quality 

indicator, excluding loans for which we have elected the fair value option. 

As of

September 30, 2016(1) December 31, 2015(1)

Primary Alt-A Other Primary Alt-A Other

(Dollars in millions)

Estimated mark-to-market LTV ratio:(2)

Less than or equal to 80% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,313,365 $ 58,287 $20,442 $2,228,533 $ 59,000 $21,274

Greater than 80% and less than or equal to 90% . . . . . . . . . . . 233,787 10,291 3,966 250,373 12,588 4,936

Greater than 90% and less than or equal to 100% . . . . . . . . . . 98,865 7,156 2,818 122,939 9,345 3,861

Greater than 100% and less than or equal to 110% . . . . . . . . . 18,071 4,405 1,805 27,875 6,231 2,596

Greater than 110% and less than or equal to 120%. . . . . . . . . 9,071 2,436 1,012 14,625 3,730 1,592

Greater than 120% and less than or equal to 125%. . . . . . . . . 2,721 791 307 4,520 1,260 545

Greater than 125% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,952 2,285 933 13,328 3,947 1,606

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,683,832 $ 85,651 $31,283 $2,662,193 $ 96,101 $36,410

__________

(1) Excludes $38.0 billion and $40.8 billion as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, of mortgage loans guaranteed 

or insured, in whole or in part, by the U.S. government or one of its agencies, that are not Alt-A loans. The segment class is primarily 

reverse mortgages for which we do not calculate an estimated mark-to-market LTV ratio.

(2) The aggregate estimated mark-to-market LTV ratio is based on the unpaid principal balance of the loan as of the end of each reported 

period divided by the estimated current value of the property, which we calculate using an internal valuation model that estimates 

periodic changes in home value.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

86

The following table displays the total recorded investment in our multifamily HFI loans by credit quality indicator, excluding 

loans for which we have elected the fair value option.

As of

September 30, December 31,

2016 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Credit risk profile by internally assigned grade:(1)

Pass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 219,613 $194,132

Special mention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,851 3,202

Substandard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,637 2,833

Doubtful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 224,105 $200,174

_________

(1) Pass (loan is current and adequately protected by the current financial strength and debt service capacity of the borrower); special 

mention (loan with signs of potential weakness); substandard (loan with a well-defined weakness that jeopardizes the timely full 

repayment); and doubtful (loan with a weakness that makes collection or liquidation in full highly questionable and improbable based 

on existing conditions and values).
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

87

Individually Impaired Loans

Individually impaired loans include troubled debt restructurings (“TDRs”), acquired credit-impaired loans and multifamily 

loans that we have assessed as probable that we will not collect all contractual amounts due, regardless of whether we are 

currently accruing interest; excluding loans classified as HFS. The following tables display the total unpaid principal balance, 

recorded investment, related allowance, average recorded investment and interest income recognized for individually 

impaired loans.

As of

September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Total

Recorded

Investment

Related

Allowance

for Loan

Losses

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Total

Recorded

Investment

Related

Allowance

for Loan

Losses

(Dollars in millions)

Individually impaired loans:

With related allowance recorded:

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 107,455 $ 102,148 $ 14,034 $ 116,477 $ 110,502 $ 16,745

Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302 306 58 322 327 59

Alt-A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,294 26,763 5,204 31,888 29,103 6,217

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,627 11,010 1,989 12,893 12,179 2,416

Total single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148,678 140,227 21,285 161,580 152,111 25,437

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 447 450 41 650 654 80

Total individually impaired loans with related allowance

recorded. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149,125 140,677 21,326 162,230 152,765 25,517

With no related allowance recorded:(1)

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,798 15,574 — 15,891 14,725 —

Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 62 — 58 54 —

Alt-A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,892 3,325 — 3,721 3,169 —

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,256 1,119 — 1,222 1,102 —

Total single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,012 20,080 — 20,892 19,050 —

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315 316 — 353 354 —

Total individually impaired loans with no related

allowance recorded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,327 20,396 — 21,245 19,404 —

Total individually impaired loans(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 171,452 $ 161,073 $ 21,326 $ 183,475 $ 172,169 $ 25,517
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

88

For the Three Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Average

Recorded

Investment

Total 

Interest 

Income 

Recognized(3)

Interest

Income

Recognized

on a Cash

Basis

Average

Recorded

Investment

Total 

Interest 

Income 

Recognized(3)

Interest

Income

Recognized

on a Cash

Basis

(Dollars in millions)

Individually impaired loans:

With related allowance recorded:

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 103,523 $ 992 $ 68 $ 113,634 $ 1,090 $ 71

Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 310 3 — 299 3 —

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,115 250 10 30,041 272 14

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,220 91 4 12,652 95 6

Total single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142,168 1,336 82 156,626 1,460 91

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492 3 — 878 9 —

Total individually impaired loans with related allowance

recorded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142,660 1,339 82 157,504 1,469 91

With no related allowance recorded:(1)

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,534 320 19 15,627 279 16

Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 1 — 53 1 —

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,312 81 — 3,674 64 1

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,115 27 — 1,259 21 —

Total single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,022 429 19 20,613 365 17

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311 3 — 386 5 —

Total individually impaired loans with no related allowance

recorded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,333 432 19 20,999 370 17

Total individually impaired loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 162,993 $ 1,771 $ 101 $ 178,503 $ 1,839 $ 108
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

89

For the Nine Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Average

Recorded

Investment

Total 

Interest 

Income 

Recognized(3)

Interest

Income

Recognized

on a Cash

Basis

Average

Recorded

Investment

Total 

Interest 

Income 

Recognized(3)

Interest

Income

Recognized

on a Cash

Basis

(Dollars in millions)

Individually impaired loans:

With related allowance recorded:

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 106,498 $ 3,028 $ 243 $ 115,762 $ 3,152 $ 248

Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 9 — 290 9 —

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,899 759 40 30,760 774 41

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,622 276 15 13,030 282 15

Total single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146,336 4,072 298 159,842 4,217 304

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555 21 — 1,053 15 —

Total individually impaired loans with related allowance

recorded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146,891 4,093 298 160,895 4,232 304

With no related allowance recorded:(1)

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,398 915 69 15,967 779 76

Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 3 — 55 3 —

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,350 224 8 3,720 158 8

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,128 79 3 1,287 56 2

Total single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,935 1,221 80 21,029 996 86

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 330 9 — 463 8 —

Total individually impaired loans with no related allowance

recorded . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,265 1,230 80 21,492 1,004 86

Total individually impaired loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 167,156 $ 5,323 $ 378 $ 182,387 $ 5,236 $ 390

__________

(1) The discounted cash flows or collateral value equals or exceeds the carrying value of the loan and, as such, no valuation allowance is 

required.

(2) Includes single-family loans restructured in a TDR with a recorded investment of $159.6 billion and $170.3 billion as of September 30, 

2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Includes multifamily loans restructured in a TDR with a recorded investment of $324 

million and $451 million as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.

(3) Total single-family interest income recognized of $1.8 billion for the three months ended September 30, 2016 consists of $1.4 billion of 

contractual interest and $320 million of effective yield adjustments. Total single-family interest income recognized of $1.8 billion for 

the three months ended September 30, 2015 consists of $1.5 billion of contractual interest and $327 million of effective yield 

adjustments. Total single-family interest income recognized of $5.3 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 consists of 

$4.3 billion of contractual interest and $961 million of effective yield adjustments. Total single-family interest income recognized of 

$5.2 billion for the nine months ended September 30, 2015 consists of $4.3 billion of contractual interest and $907 million of effective 

yield adjustments. 

Troubled Debt Restructurings

A modification to the contractual terms of a loan that results in granting a concession to a borrower experiencing financial 

difficulties is considered a TDR. In addition to formal loan modifications, we also engage in other loss mitigation activities 

with troubled borrowers, which include repayment plans and forbearance arrangements, both of which represent informal 

agreements with the borrower that do not result in the legal modification of the loan’s contractual terms. We account for these 

informal restructurings as a TDR if we defer more than three missed payments. We also classify loans to certain borrowers 

who have received bankruptcy relief as TDRs.

The substantial majority of the loan modifications we complete result in term extensions, interest rate reductions or a 

combination of both. During the three months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, the average term extension of a singlefamily modified loan was 153 months and 159 months, respectively, and the average interest rate reduction was 0.82 and 0.69
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

90

percentage points, respectively. During the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, the average term extension of a 

single-family modified loan was 157 months and 161 months, respectively, and the average interest rate reduction was 0.76

and 0.75 percentage points, respectively. 

The following tables display the number of loans and recorded investment in loans restructured in a TDR.

For the Three Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Number of

Loans

Recorded

Investment

Number of

Loans

Recorded

Investment

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,983 $ 1,922 14,926 $ 2,021

Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 5 54 6

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,578 227 1,805 268

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317 57 324 57

Total single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,932 2,211 17,109 2,352

Multifamily. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 3 10

 Total TDRs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,934 $ 2,216 17,112 $ 2,362

For the Nine Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Number of

Loans

Recorded

Investment

Number of

Loans

Recorded

Investment

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45,987 $ 6,282 54,284 $ 7,443

Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136 14 192 22

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,112 735 7,127 1,101

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,078 190 1,453 265

Total single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,313 7,221 63,056 8,831

Multifamily. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 50 7 16

 Total TDRs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52,319 $ 7,271 63,063 $ 8,847

The following tables display the number of loans and our recorded investment in these loans at the time of payment default 

for loans that were restructured in a TDR in the twelve months prior to the payment default. For purposes of this disclosure, 

we define loans that had a payment default as: single-family and multifamily loans with completed TDRs that liquidated 

during the period, either through foreclosure, deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or a short sale; single-family loans with completed 

modifications that are two or more months delinquent during the period; or multifamily loans with completed modifications 

that are one or more months delinquent during the period.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

91

For the Three Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Number of

Loans

Recorded

Investment

Number of

Loans

Recorded

Investment

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,268 $ 734 6,847 $ 1,003

Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 4 31 3

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 734 116 1,052 183

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 41 328 65

Total single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,268 895 8,258 1,254

Multifamily. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — —

 Total TDRs that subsequently defaulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,268 $ 895 8,258 $ 1,254

For the Nine Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Number of

Loans

Recorded

Investment

Number of

Loans

Recorded

Investment

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,377 $ 2,174 19,726 $ 2,870

Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 9 88 12

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,342 376 3,168 537

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 767 130 922 186

Total single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,559 2,689 23,904 3,605

Multifamily. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 3 6

 Total TDRs that subsequently defaulted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,559 $ 2,689 23,907 $ 3,611

4. Allowance for Loan Losses

We maintain an allowance for loan losses for HFI loans held by Fannie Mae and loans backing Fannie Mae MBS issued from 

consolidated trusts. When calculating our allowance for loan losses, we consider our net recorded investment in the loan at 

the balance sheet date, which includes unpaid principal balance, net of amortized premiums and discounts, and other cost 

basis adjustments. We record charge-offs as a reduction to the allowance for loan losses when losses are confirmed through 

the receipt of assets in full satisfaction of a loan, such as the underlying collateral upon foreclosure or cash upon completion 

of a short sale. Additionally, we record charge-offs as a reduction to our allowance for loan losses when a loan is determined 

to be uncollectible or upon the redesignation of nonperforming loans from HFI to HFS.

We aggregate single-family HFI loans that are not individually impaired based on similar risk characteristics for purposes of 

estimating incurred credit losses and establishing a collective single-family loss reserve using an econometric model that 

derives an overall loss reserve estimate. We base our allowance methodology on historical events and trends, such as loss 

severity (in event of default), default rates, and recoveries from mortgage insurance contracts and other credit enhancements. 

In addition, management performs a review of the observable data used in its estimate to ensure it is representative of 

prevailing economic conditions and other events existing as of the balance sheet date. 

Individually impaired single-family loans currently include those restructured in a TDR and acquired credit-impaired loans. 

When a loan has been restructured, we measure impairment using a cash flow analysis discounted at the loan’s original 

effective interest rate. However, if we expect to recover our recorded investment in an individually impaired loan through 

probable foreclosure of the underlying collateral, we measure impairment based on the fair value of the collateral, reduced by 

estimated disposal costs and adjusted for estimated proceeds from mortgage, flood, or hazard insurance and other credit 

enhancements. 

We identify multifamily loans for evaluation for impairment through a credit risk assessment process. If we determine that a 

multifamily loan is individually impaired, we generally measure impairment on that loan based on the fair value of the 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

92

underlying collateral less estimated costs to sell the property. We establish a collective loss reserve for all loans in our 

multifamily guaranty book of business that are not individually impaired using an internal model that applies loss factors to 

loans in similar risk categories. Our loss factors are developed based on our historical default and loss severity experience. 

The following tables display changes in single-family, multifamily and total allowance for loan losses.

For the Three Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Of

Fannie

Mae

Of

Consolidated

Trusts Total

Of

Fannie

Mae

Of

Consolidated

Trusts Total

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family allowance for loan losses:

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 22,736 $ 848 $ 23,584 $ 29,624 $ 1,252 $ 30,876

Provision (benefit) for loan losses(1)

. . . . . . . . . . (561) (48) (609) (1,722) 330 (1,392)

Charge-offs(2)(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (587) (17) (604) (748) (22) (770)

Recoveries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 27 135 161 3 164

Transfers(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 (113) — 262 (262) —

Other(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 — 10 (13) — (13)

Ending balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 21,819 $ 697 $ 22,516 $ 27,564 $ 1,301 $ 28,865

Multifamily allowance for loan losses:

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 57 $ 158 $ 215 $ 100 $ 174 $ 274

Provision (benefit) for loan losses(1)

. . . . . . . . . . (22) (5) (27) (10) 8 (2)

Charge-offs(2)(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) (2) (4) (5) (2) (7)

Recoveries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 — 6 4 — 4

Transfers(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — 1 (1) —

Other(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — 1 — 1

Ending balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 39 $ 151 $ 190 $ 91 $ 179 $ 270

Total allowance for loan losses:

Beginning balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 22,793 $ 1,006 $ 23,799 $ 29,724 $ 1,426 $ 31,150

Provision (benefit) for loan losses(1)

. . . . . . . . . . (583) (53) (636) (1,732) 338 (1,394)

Charge-offs(2)(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (589) (19) (608) (753) (24) (777)

Recoveries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 27 141 165 3 168

Transfers(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 (113) — 263 (263) —

Other(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 — 10 (12) — (12)

Ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 21,858 $ 848 $ 22,706 $ 27,655 $ 1,480 $ 29,135
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

93

For the Nine Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Of

Fannie

Mae

Of

Consolidated

Trusts Total

Of

Fannie

Mae

Of

Consolidated

Trusts Total

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family allowance for loan losses:

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 26,439 $ 1,270 $ 27,709 $ 32,956 $ 2,221 $ 35,177

Provision (benefit) for loan losses(1)

. . . . . . . . . . (2,979) 22 (2,957) (249) (44) (293)

Charge-offs(2)(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,629) (72) (2,701) (8,108) (64) (8,172)

Recoveries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 339 30 369 1,032 15 1,047

Transfers(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 553 (553) — 877 (877) —

Other(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 — 96 1,056 50 1,106

Ending balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 21,819 $ 697 $ 22,516 $ 27,564 $ 1,301 $ 28,865

Multifamily allowance for loan losses:

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 71 $ 171 $ 242 $ 161 $ 203 $ 364

Benefit for loan losses(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (33) (14) (47) (41) (23) (64)

Charge-offs(2)(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10) (2) (12) (39) (2) (41)

Recoveries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 — 7 4 — 4

Transfers(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 (4) — 1 (1) —

Other(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — 5 2 7

Ending balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 39 $ 151 $ 190 $ 91 $ 179 $ 270

Total allowance for loan losses:

Beginning balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 26,510 $ 1,441 $ 27,951 $ 33,117 $ 2,424 $ 35,541

Provision (benefit) for loan losses(1)

. . . . . . . . . . (3,012) 8 (3,004) (290) (67) (357)

Charge-offs(2)(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,639) (74) (2,713) (8,147) (66) (8,213)

Recoveries. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 346 30 376 1,036 15 1,051

Transfers(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 557 (557) — 878 (878) —

Other(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96 — 96 1,061 52 1,113

Ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 21,858 $ 848 $ 22,706 $ 27,655 $ 1,480 $ 29,135

__________

(1) Provision (benefit) for loan losses is included in “Benefit for credit losses” in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and 

comprehensive income.

(2) While we purchase the substantial majority of loans that are four or more months delinquent from our MBS trusts, we do not exercise 

this option to purchase loans during a forbearance period. Charge-offs of consolidated trusts generally represent loans that remained in 

our consolidated trusts at the time of default.

(3) Our charge-offs for 2015 include the initial charge-offs associated with our approach to adopting the charge-off provisions of Advisory 

Bulletin AB 2012-02, “Framework for Adversely Classifying Loans, Other Real Estate Owned, and Other Assets and Listing Assets for 

Special Mention,” as well as charge-offs relating to a change in accounting policy for nonaccrual loans.

(4) Includes transfers from trusts for delinquent loan purchases.

(5) Amounts represent changes in other loss reserves which are reflected in provision (benefit) for loan losses, charge-offs, and recoveries. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

94

The following table displays the allowance for loan losses and recorded investment in our HFI loans, excluding loans for 

which we have elected the fair value option, by impairment or reserve methodology and portfolio segment.

As of

September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

SingleFamily Multifamily TotalSingleFamily Multifamily Total

(Dollars in millions)

Allowance for loan losses by segment:

Individually impaired loans(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 21,285 $ 41 $ 21,326 $ 25,437 $ 80 $ 25,517

Collectively reserved loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,231 149 1,380 2,272 162 2,434

Total allowance for loan losses . . . . . . . . $ 22,516 $ 190 $ 22,706 $ 27,709 $ 242 $ 27,951

Recorded investment in loans by segment:

Individually impaired loans(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . $ 160,307 $ 766 $ 161,073 $ 171,161 $ 1,008 $ 172,169

Collectively reserved loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,678,498 223,339 2,901,837 2,664,377 199,166 2,863,543

Total recorded investment in loans . . . . . $ 2,838,805 $ 224,105 $ 3,062,910 $ 2,835,538 $ 200,174 $ 3,035,712

__________

(1) Includes acquired credit-impaired loans.

5. Investments in Securities

Trading Securities

Trading securities are recorded at fair value with subsequent changes in fair value recorded as “Fair value losses, net” in our 

condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. The following table displays our investments in 

trading securities.

As of

September 30,

2016

December 31,

2015

(Dollars in millions)

Mortgage-related securities:

Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,931 $ 4,813

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 808 1,314

Ginnie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,393 426

Alt-A private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313 436

Subprime private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 644

Commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,281 2,341

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 449

Total mortgage-related securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,270 10,423

U.S. Treasury securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,277 29,485

Total trading securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 40,547 $ 39,908
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

95

Available-for-Sale Securities

We record available-for-sale (“AFS”) securities at fair value with unrealized gains and losses, recorded net of tax, as a 

component of “Other comprehensive income (loss)” and we recognize realized gains and losses from the sale of AFS 

securities in “Investment gains, net” in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. 

The following table displays the gross realized gains, losses and proceeds on sales of AFS securities.

For the Three For the Nine

Months Ended Months Ended

September 30, September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Gross realized gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 400 $ 94 $ 845 $ 907

Gross realized losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 9 12 66

Total proceeds (excludes initial sale of securities from new portfolio

securitizations) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,819 1,556 10,086 6,764

The following tables display the amortized cost, gross unrealized gains and losses, and fair value by major security type for 

AFS securities in our retained mortgage portfolio.

As of September 30, 2016

Total 

Amortized 

Cost(1)

Gross

Unrealized

Gains

Gross 

Unrealized 

Losses(2)

Total

Fair

Value

(Dollars in millions)

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,545 $ 187 $ (20) $ 2,712

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534 48 — 582

Ginnie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 7 — 61

Alt-A private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 883 535 (1) 1,417

Subprime private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,437 486 (4) 1,919

CMBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971 8 (1) 978

Mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,639 90 (4) 1,725

Other mortgage-related securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 22 — 471

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8,512 $ 1,383 $ (30) $ 9,865

As of December 31, 2015

Total 

Amortized 

Cost(1)

Gross

Unrealized

Gains

Gross 

Unrealized 

Losses(2)

Total

Fair

Value

(Dollars in millions)

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,008 $ 243 $ (30) $ 4,221

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,000 299 — 4,299

Ginnie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 48 — 391

Alt-A private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,029 653 (4) 2,678

Subprime private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,526 759 (4) 3,281

CMBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,235 20 — 1,255

Mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,639 99 (37) 2,701

Other mortgage-related securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,361 49 (6) 1,404

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 18,141 $ 2,170 $ (81) $ 20,230
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

96

__________

(1) Amortized cost consists of unpaid principal balance, unamortized premiums, discounts and other cost basis adjustments as well as net 

other-than-temporary impairments (“OTTI”) recognized in “Investment gains, net” in our condensed consolidated statements of 

operations and comprehensive income.

(2) Represents the gross unrealized losses on securities for which we have not recognized OTTI, as well as the noncredit component of 

OTTI and cumulative changes in fair value of securities for which we previously recognized the credit component of OTTI in 

“Accumulated other comprehensive income” in our condensed consolidated balance sheets.

The following tables display additional information regarding gross unrealized losses and fair value by major security type 

for AFS securities in an unrealized loss position.

As of September 30, 2016

Less Than 12

Consecutive Months

12 Consecutive Months

or Longer

Gross

Unrealized

Losses

Fair

Value

Gross

Unrealized

Losses

Fair

Value

(Dollars in millions)

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (1) $ 85 $ (19) $ 502

Alt-A private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) 38 — —

Subprime private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — (4) 76

CMBS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) 136 — —

Mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) 16 (1) 5

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (6) $ 275 $ (24) $ 583

As of December 31, 2015

Less Than 12

Consecutive Months

12 Consecutive Months

or Longer

Gross

Unrealized

Losses

Fair

Value

Gross

Unrealized

Losses

Fair

Value

(Dollars in millions)

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (8) $ 659 $ (22) $ 491

Alt-A private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) 26 (3) 54

Subprime private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 12 (4) 91

Mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (35) 631 (2) 22

Other mortgage-related securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6) 224 — —

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (50) $ 1,552 $ (31) $ 658

Other-Than-Temporary Impairments

We recognized $3 million and $5 million of OTTI for the three months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, 

and $34 million and $187 million of OTTI for the nine months ended September 30, 2016 and 2015, respectively, which are 

included in “Investment gains, net” in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

The following table displays the modeled attributes, including default rates and severities, which were used to determine as of 

September 30, 2016 whether our senior interests in certain non-agency mortgage-related securities (including those we intend 

to sell) will experience a cash shortfall. An estimate of voluntary prepayment rates is also an input to the present value of 

expected losses.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

97

As of September 30, 2016

Alt-A

Subprime Option ARM Fixed Rate Variable Rate Hybrid Rate

(Dollars in millions)

Unpaid principal balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,688 $ 360 $ 270 $ 548 $ 571

Weighted average collateral default(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . 37.4% 24.3% 17.0% 18.8% 7.4%

Weighted average collateral severities(2)

. . . . . . . . . 49.8 29.3 52.4 38.2 35.0

Weighted average voluntary prepayment rates(3). . . 2.9 9.3 7.9 8.6 13.9

Average credit enhancement(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12.8 3.7 0.4 2.0 1.6

__________

(1) The expected remaining cumulative default rate of the collateral pool backing the securities, as a percentage of the current collateral 

unpaid principal balance, weighted by security unpaid principal balance.

(2) The expected remaining loss given default of the collateral pool backing the securities, calculated as the ratio of remaining cumulative 

loss divided by cumulative defaults, weighted by security unpaid principal balance.

(3) The average monthly voluntary prepayment rate, weighted by security unpaid principal balance.

(4) The average percent current credit enhancement provided by subordination of other securities. Excludes excess interest projections and 

monoline bond insurance.

The following table displays activity related to the unrealized credit loss component on debt securities held by us and 

recognized in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. 

For the Three Months

Ended September 30,

For the Nine Months

Ended September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,219 $ 2,557 $ 2,421 $ 5,260

Additions for the credit component on debt securities for which OTTI was not

previously recognized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 — 1 —

Additions for the credit component on debt securities for which OTTI was

previously recognized . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1 6 5

Reductions for securities no longer in portfolio at period end . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) (2) (106) (1,167)

Reductions for securities which we intend to sell or it is more likely than not that

we will be required to sell before recovery of amortized cost basis. . . . . . . . . . . . (223) — (254) (1,439)

Reductions for amortization resulting from changes in cash flows expected to be

collected over the remaining life of the securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (30) (43) (104) (146)

Ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,964 $ 2,513 $ 1,964 $ 2,513
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

98

Maturity Information

The following table displays the amortized cost and fair value of our AFS securities by major security type and remaining 

contractual maturity, assuming no principal prepayments. The contractual maturity of mortgage-backed securities is not a 

reliable indicator of their expected life because borrowers generally have the right to prepay their obligations at any time.

As of September 30, 2016

Total

Amortized

Cost

Total 

Fair

Value

One Year or Less

After One Year

Through Five Years

After Five Years

Through Ten Years After Ten Years

Amortized

Cost

Fair

Value

Amortized

Cost

Fair

Value

Amortized

Cost

Fair

Value

Amortized

Cost

Fair

Value

(Dollars in millions)

Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,545 $ 2,712 $ — $ — $ 29 $ 29 $ 60 $ 66 $ 2,456 $ 2,617

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 534 582 1 1 65 68 95 102 373 411

Ginnie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 61 — — 1 1 3 4 50 56

Alt-A private-label securities. . . . . . . . 883 1,417 — — — — — — 883 1,417

Subprime private-label securities. . . . . 1,437 1,919 — — — — — — 1,437 1,919

CMBS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 971 978 776 782 154 156 — — 41 40

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . . . . . 1,639 1,725 10 10 88 88 170 172 1,371 1,455

Other mortgage-related securities . . . . 449 471 — — — 1 3 3 446 467

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 8,512 $ 9,865 $ 787 $ 793 $ 337 $ 343 $ 331 $ 347 $ 7,057 $ 8,382

6. Financial Guarantees

We recognize a guaranty obligation for our obligation to stand ready to perform on our guarantees to unconsolidated trusts 

and other guaranty arrangements. These guarantees expose us to credit losses on the mortgage loans or, in the case of 

mortgage-related securities, the underlying mortgage loans of the related securities. The remaining contractual terms of our 

guarantees range from 1 day to 36 years; however, the actual term of each guaranty may be significantly less than the 

contractual term based on the prepayment characteristics of the related mortgage loans. 

The following table displays our maximum exposure, guaranty obligation recognized in our condensed consolidated balance 

sheets and the maximum potential recovery from third parties through available credit enhancements and recourse related to 

our financial guarantees.

As of

September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

Maximum 

Exposure

(1)

Guaranty

Obligation

Maximum 

Recovery(2)

Maximum 

Exposure

(1)

Guaranty

Obligation

Maximum 

Recovery(2)

(Dollars in millions)

Unconsolidated Fannie Mae MBS. . . . . . . . . . . $ 13,333 $ 147 $ 8,269 $ 15,069 $ 194 $ 8,857

Other guaranty arrangements(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,469 135 2,707 16,504 135 2,869

 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28,802 $ 282 $ 10,976 $ 31,573 $ 329 $ 11,726

__________

(1) Primarily consists of the unpaid principal balance of the underlying mortgage loans.

(2) Recoverability of such credit enhancements and recourse is subject to, among other factors, our mortgage insurers’ and financial 

guarantors’ ability to meet their obligations to us. For information on our mortgage insurers, see “Note 13, Concentrations of Credit 

Risk.”

(3) Primarily consists of credit enhancements and long-term standby commitments.

The fair value of our guaranty obligations associated with the Fannie Mae MBS included in “Investments in securities” in our 

condensed consolidated balance sheets was $433 million and $488 million as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, 

respectively. These Fannie Mae MBS consist primarily of private-label wraps where our guaranty arrangement is with an 

unconsolidated MBS trust.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

99

7. Acquired Property, Net

Acquired property, net consists of held-for-sale foreclosed property received in satisfaction of a loan, net of a valuation 

allowance for declines in the fair value of the properties after initial acquisition. We classify properties as held for sale when 

we intend to sell the property, are actively marketing it and it is ready for immediate sale in its current condition. The 

following table displays the activity in acquired property, and the related valuation allowance.

For the Three Months

Ended September 30,

For the Nine Months

Ended September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Beginning balance — Acquired property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,928 $ 9,199 $ 7,481 $ 11,442

Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,391 2,236 4,876 7,602

Disposals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,906) (3,125) (6,944) (10,734)

Ending balance — Acquired property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,413 8,310 5,413 8,310

Valuation allowance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (372) (619) (372) (619)

Ending balance — Acquired property, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,041 $ 7,691 $ 5,041 $ 7,691

8. Short-Term Borrowings and Long-Term Debt

Short-Term Borrowings

The following table displays our outstanding short-term borrowings (borrowings with an original contractual maturity of one 

year or less) and weighted-average interest rates of these borrowings.

As of

September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

Outstanding

WeightedAverage 

Interest Rate(1) Outstanding

WeightedAverage 

Interest Rate(1)

(Dollars in millions)

Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to 

repurchase(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 35 —% $ 62 —%

Short-term debt of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 51,442 0.44% $ 71,007 0.26%

Debt of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612 0.46 943 0.19

Total short-term debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52,054 0.44% $ 71,950 0.26%

__________

(1) Includes the effects of discounts, premiums and other cost basis adjustments.

(2) Represents agreements to repurchase securities for a specified price, with repayment generally occurring on the following day.

Intraday Line of Credit

We use a secured intraday funding line of credit provided by a large financial institution. We post collateral which, in some 

circumstances, the secured party has the right to repledge to third parties. As this line of credit is an uncommitted intraday 

loan facility, we may be unable to draw on it if and when needed. The line of credit under this facility was $15.0 billion as of 

September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. We had no borrowings outstanding under this line of credit as of September 30, 

2016.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

100

Long-Term Debt

Long-term debt represents borrowings with an original contractual maturity of greater than one year. The following table 

displays our outstanding long-term debt.

As of

September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

Maturities Outstanding

WeightedAverage 

Interest 

Rate(1) Maturities Outstanding

WeightedAverage 

Interest 

Rate(1)

(Dollars in millions)

Senior fixed:

Benchmark notes and bonds. . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2030 $ 153,481 2.23% 2016 - 2030 $ 154,057 2.49%

Medium-term notes(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2026 83,661 1.39 2016 - 2025 96,997 1.53

Other(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2017 - 2038 13,557 6.58 2016 - 2038 27,772 4.88

Total senior fixed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250,699 2.19 278,826 2.39

Senior floating:

Medium-term notes(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2019 28,715 0.59 2016 - 2019 20,791 0.27

Connecticut Avenue Securities(4). . . . . . . 2023 - 2029 15,636 4.59 2023 - 2028 10,764 3.84

Other(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2020 - 2037 419 6.65 2020 - 2037 368 10.46

Total senior floating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44,770 2.01 31,923 1.58

Subordinated debentures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2019 4,537 9.93 2019 4,227 9.93

Secured borrowings(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2021 - 2022 120 1.42 2021 - 2022 152 1.47

Total long-term debt of Fannie Mae(7)

. . . . . . 300,126 2.28 315,128 2.41

Debt of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2054 2,880,933 2.53 2016 - 2054 2,810,593 2.94

Total long-term debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,181,059 2.51% $ 3,125,721 2.88%

__________

(1) Includes the effects of discounts, premiums and other cost basis adjustments.

(2) Includes long-term debt with an original contractual maturity of greater than 1 year and up to 10 years, excluding zero-coupon debt.

(3) Includes other long-term debt and foreign exchange bonds.

(4) Credit risk-sharing securities that transfer a portion of the credit risk on specified pools of mortgage loans to the investors in these 

securities, a portion of which is reported at fair value. 

(5) Consists of structured debt instruments that are reported at fair value.

(6) Represents our remaining liability resulting from the transfer of financial assets from our condensed consolidated balance sheets that 

did not qualify as a sale under the accounting guidance for the transfer of financial instruments.

(7) Includes unamortized discounts and premiums, other cost basis adjustments and fair value adjustments of $2.0 billion and $3.2 

billion as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.

9. Derivative Instruments

Derivative instruments are an integral part of our strategy in managing interest rate risk. Derivative instruments may be 

privately-negotiated, bilateral contracts, or they may be listed and traded on an exchange. We refer to our derivative 

transactions made pursuant to bilateral contracts as our over-the-counter (“OTC”) derivative transactions and our derivative 

transactions accepted for clearing by a derivatives clearing organization as our cleared derivative transactions. We typically 

do not settle the notional amount of our risk management derivatives; rather, notional amounts provide the basis for 

calculating actual payments or settlement amounts. The derivatives we use for interest rate risk management purposes consist 

primarily of interest rate swaps and interest rate options. 

We enter into various forms of credit risk sharing agreements, including credit risk transfer transactions, swap credit 

enhancements and mortgage insurance contracts, that we account for as derivatives. The majority of our credit-related 

derivatives are credit risk transfer transactions, whereby a portion of the credit risk associated with losses on a reference pool 

of mortgage loans is transferred to a third party.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

101

We enter into forward purchase and sale commitments that lock in the future delivery of mortgage loans and mortgagerelated securities at a fixed price or yield. Certain commitments to purchase mortgage loans and purchase or sell mortgagerelated securities meet the criteria of a derivative. We typically settle the notional amount of our mortgage commitments that 

are accounted for as derivatives.

We recognize all derivatives as either assets or liabilities in our condensed consolidated balance sheets at their fair value on a 

trade date basis. Fair value amounts, which are netted to the extent a legal right of offset exists and is enforceable by law at 

the counterparty level and are inclusive of the right or obligation associated with the cash collateral posted or received, are 

recorded in “Other assets” or “Other liabilities” in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. See “Note 15, Fair Value” for 

additional information on derivatives recorded at fair value. We present cash flows from derivatives as operating activities in 

our condensed consolidated statements of cash flows.

Notional and Fair Value Position of our Derivatives

The following table displays the notional amount and estimated fair value of our asset and liability derivative instruments.

As of September 30, 2016 As of December 31, 2015

Asset Derivatives Liability Derivatives Asset Derivatives Liability Derivatives

Notional

Amount

Estimated

Fair Value

Notional

Amount

Estimated

Fair Value

Notional

Amount

Estimated

Fair Value

Notional

Amount

Estimated

Fair Value

(Dollars in millions)

Risk management derivatives:

Swaps:

Pay-fixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,324 $ 19 $ 127,859 $ (11,071) $ 33,154 $ 267 $ 123,106 $ (6,920)

Receive-fixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99,254 5,218 70,551 (146) 59,796 3,436 143,209 (753)

Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,764 198 15,700 (21) 1,864 141 17,100 (15)

Foreign currency . . . . . . . . . . . . 225 75 227 (82) 295 95 258 (52)

Swaptions:

Pay-fixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,175 36 6,850 (13) 7,050 45 14,950 (26)

Receive-fixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,625 7 6,600 (157) 2,000 8 13,950 (171)

Other(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,371 22 — (1) 9,196 28 — (2)

Total gross risk management

derivatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124,738 5,575 227,787 (11,491) 113,355 4,020 312,573 (7,939)

Accrued interest receivable

(payable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 720 — (1,097) — 758 — (977)

Netting adjustment(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . — (6,154) — 12,423 — (4,024) — 8,650

Total net risk management

derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 124,738 $ 141 $ 227,787 $ (165) $ 113,355 $ 754 $ 312,573 $ (266)

Mortgage commitment derivatives:

Mortgage commitments to

purchase whole loans . . . . . . . . $ 10,820 $ 31 $ 4,568 $ (6) $ 4,815 $ 9 $ 2,960 $ (9)

Forward contracts to purchase

mortgage-related securities. . . . 66,637 280 18,467 (29) 31,273 66 19,418 (57)

Forward contracts to sell

mortgage-related securities. . . . 18,666 38 117,252 (502) 26,224 65 40,753 (92)

Total mortgage commitment

derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 96,123 $ 349 $ 140,287 $ (537) $ 62,312 $ 140 $ 63,131 $ (158)

Derivatives at fair value . . . . . . $ 220,861 $ 490 $ 368,074 $ (702) $ 175,667 $ 894 $ 375,704 $ (424)

__________

(1) Includes credit risk transfer transactions, futures, swap credit enhancements and mortgage insurance contracts that we account for as 

derivatives.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

102

(2) The netting adjustment represents the effect of the legal right to offset under legally enforceable master netting arrangements to settle 

with the same counterparty on a net basis, including cash collateral posted and received. Cash collateral posted was $6.7 billion and 

$4.9 billion as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Cash collateral received was $419 million and $314 

million as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. 

A majority of our OTC derivative contracts contain provisions that require our senior unsecured debt to maintain a minimum 

credit rating from S&P and Moody’s. If our senior unsecured debt credit ratings were downgraded to established thresholds in 

these derivative contracts, which range from A+ to BBB+, we could be required to provide additional collateral to or 

terminate transactions with certain counterparties. The aggregate fair value of all OTC derivatives with credit-risk-related 

contingent features that were in a net liability position was $3.3 billion and $2.4 billion as of September 30, 2016 and 

December 31, 2015, respectively, for which we posted collateral of $3.3 billion and $2.2 billion in the normal course of 

business as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Had all of the credit-risk-related contingency 

features underlying these agreements been triggered, an additional $85 million and $257 million would have been required to 

be posted as collateral or to immediately settle our positions based on the individual agreements and our fair value position as 

of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. A reduction in our credit ratings may also cause derivatives 

clearing organizations or their members to demand that we post additional collateral for our cleared derivatives contracts.

We record all derivative gains and losses, including accrued interest, in “Fair value losses, net” in our condensed consolidated 

statements of operations and comprehensive income. The following table displays, by type of derivative instrument, the fair 

value gains and losses, net on our derivatives.

For the Three Months For the Nine Months

Ended September 30, Ended September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Risk management derivatives:

Swaps:

Pay-fixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,386 $ (4,402) $ (6,044) $ (3,120)

Receive-fixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,020) 2,295 3,338 2,236

Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 37 51 25

Foreign currency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6) (20) (37) (33)

Swaptions:

Pay-fixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3) 32 26 137

Receive-fixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 (102) (126) (181)

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7) 22 153 20

Net accrual of periodic settlements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (295) (266) (855) (694)

Total risk management derivatives fair value gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . $ 67 $ (2,404) $ (3,494) $ (1,610)

Mortgage commitment derivatives fair value losses, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (216) (361) (945) (427)

Total derivatives fair value losses, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (149) $ (2,765) $ (4,439) $ (2,037)

Derivative Counterparty Credit Exposure

Our derivative counterparty credit exposure relates principally to interest rate derivative contracts. We are exposed to the risk 

that a counterparty in a derivative transaction will default on payments due to us, which may require us to seek a replacement 

derivative from a different counterparty. This replacement may be at a higher cost, or we may be unable to find a suitable 

replacement. We manage our derivative counterparty credit exposure relating to our risk management derivative transactions 

mainly through enforceable master netting arrangements, which allow us to net derivative assets and liabilities with the same 

counterparty or clearing organization and clearing member. For our OTC derivative transactions, we require counterparties to 

post collateral, which may include cash, U.S. Treasury securities, agency debt and agency mortgage-related securities. 

See “Note 14, Netting Arrangements” for information on our rights to offset assets and liabilities.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

103

10. Earnings (Loss) Per Share

The calculation of income available to common stockholders and earnings per share is based on the underlying premise that 

all income after payment of dividends on preferred shares is available to and will be distributed to common stockholders. 

However, as a result of our conservatorship status and the terms of the senior preferred stock, no amounts are available to 

distribute as dividends to common or preferred stockholders (other than to Treasury as holder of the senior preferred stock). 

The following table displays the computation of basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share of common stock. 

For the Three Months 

Ended September 30,

For the Nine Months 

Ended September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015

(Dollars and shares in millions, except per share amounts)

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,196 $ 1,960 $ 7,278 $ 8,488

Dividends distributed or available for distribution to senior preferred 

stockholder(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,977) (2,202) (6,765) (8,357)

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 219 $ (242) $ 513 $ 131

Weighted-average common shares outstanding—Basic(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,762 5,762 5,762 5,762

Convertible preferred stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 — 131 131

Weighted-average common shares outstanding—Diluted(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,893 5,762 5,893 5,893

Earnings (loss) per share:

Basic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.04 $ (0.04) $ 0.09 $ 0.02

Diluted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.04 (0.04) 0.09 0.02

__________

(1) Dividends distributed or available for distribution were calculated based on our net worth as of the end of the fiscal quarters, less the 

applicable capital reserve amount. See “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” in our 2015 Form 10-K for additional 

information on our senior preferred stock agreement and our payment of dividends to Treasury.

(2) Includes 4.6 billion of weighted average shares of common stock that would be issued upon the full exercise of the warrant issued to 

Treasury from the date the warrant was issued through September 30, 2016 and 2015.

11. Segment Reporting

Our three reportable segments are: Single-Family, Multifamily and Capital Markets. We use these three segments to generate 

revenue and manage business risk, and each segment is based on the type of business activities it performs. Under our 

segment reporting, the sum of the results for our three business segments does not equal our condensed consolidated 

statements of operations and comprehensive income as we separate the activity related to our consolidated trusts from the 

results generated by our three segments. Our business segment financial results include directly attributable revenues and 

expenses. We apply accounting methods for segment reporting purposes that differ from our condensed consolidated results. 

Additionally, we allocate to each of our segments: (1) capital using FHFA minimum capital requirements adjusted for overor under-capitalization; (2) indirect administrative costs; and (3) a provision for federal income taxes. In addition, we allocate 

intracompany guaranty fee income as a charge from the Single-Family and Multifamily segments to Capital Markets for 

managing the credit risk on mortgage loans held by the Capital Markets group. Therefore, we reconcile the sum of the results 

for our three business segments to our condensed consolidated results of operations. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

104

For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2016

Business Segments

SingleFamily MultifamilyCapital

Markets

Reconciling 

Items(1)

Total

Results

(Dollars in millions)

Net interest income (loss). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 166 $ (22) $ 1,049 $ 4,242 (2) $ 5,435

Benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 645 28 — — 673

Net interest income after benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . 811 6 1,049 4,242 6,108

Guaranty fee income (expense)(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,305 431 (189) (3,524)

(4) 23 (4)

Investment gains (losses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 23 2,232 (1,788)

(5) 467

Fair value gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — (530) 39 (6) (491)

Gains (losses) from partnership investments(7)

. . . . . . . . . . . . (17) 5 — — (12)

Fee and other income (expense). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 49 69 (55) 152

Administrative expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (479) (84) (98) — (661)

Foreclosed property (expense) income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (114) 4 — — (110)

TCCA fees(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (465) — — — (465)

Other income (expenses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (382) (10) (44) 148 (288)

Income (loss) before federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,748 424 2,489 (938) 4,723

Provision for federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (808) (49) (670) — (1,527)

Net income (loss) attributable to Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,940 $ 375 $ 1,819 $ (938) $ 3,196

For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2016

Business Segments

SingleFamily MultifamilyCapital

Markets

Reconciling 

Items(1)

Total

Results

(Dollars in millions)

Net interest income (loss). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 485 $ (62) $ 3,221 $ 11,846 (2) $ 15,490

Benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,404 54 — — 3,458

Net interest income (loss) after benefit for credit losses . . . . . 3,889 (8) 3,221 11,846 18,948

Guaranty fee income (expense)(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,787 1,216 (576) (10,349)

(4) 78 (4)

Investment gains (losses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) 37 5,735 (4,837)

(5) 934

Fair value gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — (5,063) 92 (6) (4,971)

Gains (losses) from partnership investments(7)

. . . . . . . . . . . . (54) 45 — — (9)

Fee and other income (expense). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 156 121 (93) 474

Administrative expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,483) (254) (290) — (2,027)

Foreclosed property (expense) income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (510) 3 — — (507)

TCCA fees(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,358) — — — (1,358)

Other income (expenses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,046) (21) (103) 361 (809)

Income (loss) before federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,514 1,174 3,045 (2,980) 10,753

Provision for federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,544) (127) (804) — (3,475)

Net income (loss) attributable to Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,970 $ 1,047 $ 2,241 $ (2,980) $ 7,278
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

105

For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2015

Business Segments

SingleFamily MultifamilyCapital

Markets

Reconciling 

Items(1)

Total

Results

(Dollars in millions)

Net interest income (loss). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 66 $ (16) $ 1,401 $ 4,137 (2) $ 5,588

Benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,545 5 — — 1,550

Net interest income (loss) after benefit for credit losses . . . . . 1,611 (11) 1,401 4,137 7,138

Guaranty fee income (expense)(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,145 367 (210) (3,271)

(4) 31 (4)

Investment gains (losses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) 5 1,608 (1,313)

(5) 299

Fair value gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4) — (2,697) 112 (6) (2,589)

Gains (losses) from partnership investments(7)

. . . . . . . . . . . . (12) 7 — — (5)

Fee and other income (expense). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 58 83 (11) 228

Administrative expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (649) (109) (194) — (952)

Foreclosed property (expense) income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (516) 19 — — (497)

TCCA fees(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (413) — — — (413)

Other income (expenses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (180) 5 (1) (34) (210)

Income (loss) before federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,079 341 (10) (380) 3,030

Provision for federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,040) (17) (13) — (1,070)

Net income (loss) attributable to Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,039 $ 324 $ (23) $ (380) $ 1,960

For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2015

Business Segments

SingleFamily MultifamilyCapital

Markets

Reconciling 

Items(1)

Total

Results

(Dollars in millions)

Net interest income (loss). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 93 $ (73) $ 4,516 $ 11,796 (2) $ 16,332

Benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 967 83 — — 1,050

Net interest income after benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . 1,060 10 4,516 11,796 17,382

Guaranty fee income (expense)(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,277 1,064 (658) (9,584)

(4) 99 (4)

Investment gains (losses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) 29 4,679 (3,551)

(5) 1,155

Fair value gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (8) — (2,112) 218 (6) (1,902)

Gains (losses) from partnership investments(7)

. . . . . . . . . . . . (27) 262 — — 235

Fee and other income (expense). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 571 193 288 (28) 1,024

Administrative expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,591) (280) (493) — (2,364)

Foreclosed property (expense) income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,183) 31 — — (1,152)

TCCA fees(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,192) — — — (1,192)

Other income (expenses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (669) (8) (12) 42 (647)

Income (loss) before federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,236 1,301 6,208 (1,107) 12,638

Provision for federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,040) (128) (1,982) — (4,150)

Net income (loss) attributable to Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,196 $ 1,173 $ 4,226 $ (1,107) $ 8,488

__________

(1) Represents activity related to the assets and liabilities of consolidated trusts in our condensed consolidated balance sheets, and the 

elimination of intercompany transactions occurring between the three business segments and our consolidated trusts, as well as other 

adjustments to reconcile to our condensed consolidated results.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

106

(2) Represents net interest income of consolidated trusts and amortization expense of cost basis adjustments on securities in the Capital 

Markets group’s mortgage portfolio that on a GAAP basis are eliminated. 

(3) Reflects the impact of a 10 basis point guaranty fee increase implemented in 2012 pursuant to the TCCA, the incremental revenue from 

which is remitted to Treasury. The resulting revenue is included in guaranty fee income and the expense is recognized as “TCCA fees.”

(4) Represents the guaranty fees paid from consolidated trusts to the Single-Family and Multifamily segments and the elimination of the 

amortization of deferred cash fees related to consolidated trusts that were re-established for segment reporting. Total guaranty fee 

income related to unconsolidated Fannie Mae MBS trusts and other credit enhancement arrangements is included in fee and other 

income in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

(5) Primarily represents the removal of realized gains and losses on sales of Fannie Mae MBS classified as available-for-sale securities that 

are issued by consolidated trusts and in the Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio. The adjustment also includes the removal of 

securitization gains (losses) recognized in the Capital Markets segment relating to portfolio securitization transactions that do not 

qualify for sale accounting under GAAP.

(6) Represents the removal of fair value adjustments on consolidated Fannie Mae MBS classified as trading that are in the Capital Markets 

group’s mortgage portfolio.

(7) Gains (losses) from partnership investments are included in “Other expenses, net” in our condensed consolidated statements of 

operations and comprehensive income.

12. Equity

The following table displays the activity in other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax, by major categories.

For the Three Months

Ended September 30,

For the Nine Months

Ended September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,196 $ 1,960 $ 7,278 $ 8,488

Other comprehensive income (loss), net of tax effect:

Changes in net unrealized gains (losses) on AFS securities (net of tax of $18

and $58, respectively, for the three months ended and net of tax of $3 and

$89, respectively, for the nine months ended) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 (107) (6) (164)

Reclassification adjustment for OTTI recognized in net income (net of tax

of $1 and $2, respectively, for the three months ended and net of tax of

$12 and $66, respectively, for the nine months ended) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3 22 121

Reclassification adjustment for gains on AFS securities included in net

income (net of tax of $129 and $32, respectively, for the three months

ended and net of tax of $266 and $265, respectively, for the nine months

ended) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (240) (73) (494) (505)

Other(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) 430 (6) 428

Total other comprehensive income (loss). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (207) 253 (484) (120)

Total comprehensive income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,989 $ 2,213 $ 6,794 $ 8,368

__________

(1) For the three and nine months ended September 30, 2015, includes reclassification adjustment related to the termination of the defined 

benefit pension plan recognized in “Administrative expenses” and “Provision for federal income taxes” in our condensed consolidated 

statements of operations and comprehensive income.

The following table displays our accumulated other comprehensive income by major categories.

As of

September 30, December 31,

2016 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Net unrealized gains on AFS securities for which we have not recorded OTTI, net of tax . . . . . . . $ 198 $ 455

Net unrealized gains on AFS securities for which we have recorded OTTI, net of tax . . . . . . . . . . 682 903

Other, net of tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 49

Accumulated other comprehensive income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 923 $ 1,407
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

107

The table below displays changes in accumulated other comprehensive income, net of tax.

For the Three Months Ended September 30, For the Nine Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015 2016 2015

AFS(1) Other Total AFS(1) Other(2) Total AFS(1) Other Total AFS(1) Other(2) Total

(Dollars in millions)

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . $ 1,085 $ 45 $ 1,130 $ 1,750 $ (390) $ 1,360 $ 1,358 $ 49 $ 1,407 $ 2,121 $ (388) $ 1,733

Other comprehensive

income (loss) before

reclassifications. . . . . . . 33 — 33 (107) 6 (101) (6) — (6) (164) 6 (158)

Amounts reclassified from

other comprehensive

income (loss). . . . . . . . . (238) (2) (240) (70) 424 354 (472) (6) (478) (384) 422 38

Net other comprehensive

income (loss). . . . . . . . . (205) (2) (207) (177) 430 253 (478) (6) (484) (548) 428 (120)

Ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . $ 880 $ 43 $ 923 $ 1,573 $ 40 $ 1,613 $ 880 $ 43 $ 923 $ 1,573 $ 40 $ 1,613

__________

(1) The amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income represent the gain or loss recognized in earnings due to a sale 

of an AFS security or the recognition of a net impairment recognized in earnings, which are recorded in “Investments gains, net” in our 

condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

(2) The amounts reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income represent activity from our defined benefit pension plans, 

which is recorded in “Administrative expenses” and “Provision for federal income taxes” in our condensed consolidated statements of 

operations and comprehensive income. The defined benefit pension plans were terminated and all remaining benefits were distributed 

during the third quarter of 2015.

13. Concentrations of Credit Risk

Risk Characteristics of our Guaranty Book of Business

We gauge our performance risk under our guaranty based on the delinquency status of the mortgage loans we hold in our 

retained mortgage portfolio, or in the case of mortgage-backed securities, the mortgage loans underlying the related 

securities.

For single-family loans, management monitors the serious delinquency rate, which is the percentage of single-family loans 90

days or more past due or in the foreclosure process, and loans that have higher risk characteristics, such as high mark-tomarket LTV ratios.

For multifamily loans, management monitors the serious delinquency rate, which is the percentage of loans, based on unpaid 

principal balance, that are 60 days or more past due, and other loans that have higher risk characteristics, to determine our 

overall credit quality indicator. Higher risk characteristics include, but are not limited to, current debt service coverage ratio 

(“DSCR”) below 1.0 and high original LTV ratios. We stratify multifamily loans into different internal risk categories based 

on the credit risk inherent in each individual loan.

For single-family and multifamily loans, we use this information, in conjunction with housing market and economic 

conditions, to structure our pricing and our eligibility and underwriting criteria to reflect the current risk of loans with these 

higher-risk characteristics, and in some cases we decide to significantly reduce our participation in riskier loan product 

categories. Management also uses this data together with other credit risk measures to identify key trends that guide the 

development of our loss mitigation strategies.

The following tables display the delinquency status and serious delinquency rates for specified loan categories of our singlefamily conventional and total multifamily guaranty book of business.

As of

September 30, 2016(1) December 31, 2015(1)

30 Days

Delinquent

60 Days

Delinquent

Seriously 

Delinquent(2)

30 Days

Delinquent

60 Days

Delinquent

Seriously 

Delinquent(2)

Percentage of single-family conventional guaranty 

book of business(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.27% 0.34% 1.23% 1.27% 0.37% 1.59%

Percentage of single-family conventional loans(4)

. . 1.45 0.39 1.24 1.46 0.41 1.55
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

108

As of

September 30, 2016(1) December 31, 2015(1)

Percentage of 

Single-Family

Conventional

Guaranty Book 

of Business(3)

Seriously 

Delinquent 

Rate(2)

Percentage of 

Single-Family

Conventional

Guaranty Book 

of Business(3)

Seriously 

Delinquent 

Rate(2)

Estimated mark-to-market loan-to-value ratio:

Greater than 100% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% 10.56% 3% 10.76%

Geographical distribution:

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 0.49 20 0.58

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.05 6 2.86

New Jersey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3.47 4 4.87

New York . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2.77 5 3.55

All other states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 1.11 65 1.34

Product distribution:

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 5.27 4 6.53

Vintages:

2004 and prior. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 2.75 5 3.06

2005-2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 6.49 10 7.60

2009-2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87 0.33 85 0.36

__________

(1) Consists of the portion of our single-family conventional guaranty book of business for which we have detailed loan level information, 

which constituted approximately 99% our total single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of September 30, 2016 and 

December 31, 2015.

(2) Consists of single-family conventional loans that were 90 days or more past due or in the foreclosure process as of September 30, 2016

and December 31, 2015.

(3) Calculated based on the aggregate unpaid principal balance of single-family conventional loans for each category divided by the 

aggregate unpaid principal balance of loans in our single-family conventional guaranty book of business.

(4) Calculated based on the number of single-family conventional loans that were delinquent divided by the total number of loans in our 

single-family conventional guaranty book of business.

As of

September 30, 2016(1)(2) December 31, 2015(1)(2)

30 Days

Delinquent

Seriously 

Delinquent(3)

30 Days

Delinquent

Seriously 

Delinquent(3)

Percentage of multifamily guaranty book of business. . . . . . . . . . . . 0.02% 0.07% 0.03% 0.07%

As of

September 30, 2016(1) December 31, 2015(1)

Percentage of 

Multifamily 

Guaranty Book 

of Business(2)

Percentage 

Seriously 

Delinquent(3)(4)

Percentage of 

Multifamily 

Guaranty Book 

of Business(2)

Percentage 

Seriously 

Delinquent(3)(4)

Original LTV ratio:

Greater than 80% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2% 0.11% 3% 0.40%

Less than or equal to 80% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 0.07 97 0.06

Current DSCR less than 1.0(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.95 2 1.51

__________

(1) Consists of the portion of our multifamily guaranty book of business for which we have detailed loan level information, which 

constituted approximately 99% of our total multifamily guaranty book of business as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, 

excluding loans that have been defeased.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

109

(2) Calculated based on the aggregate unpaid principal balance of multifamily loans for each category divided by the aggregate unpaid 

principal balance of loans in our multifamily guaranty book of business.

(3) Consists of multifamily loans that were 60 days or more past due as of the dates indicated.

(4) Calculated based on the unpaid principal balance of multifamily loans that were seriously delinquent divided by the aggregate unpaid 

principal balance of multifamily loans for each category included in our guaranty book of business.

(5) Our estimates of current DSCRs are based on the latest available income information for these properties. Although we use the most 

recently available results of our multifamily borrowers, there is a lag in reporting, which typically can range from 3 to 6 months but in 

some cases may be longer.

Other Concentrations

Mortgage Sellers and Servicers. Mortgage servicers collect mortgage and escrow payments from borrowers, pay taxes and 

insurance costs from escrow accounts, monitor and report delinquencies, and perform other required activities on our behalf. 

Our mortgage sellers and servicers may also be obligated to repurchase loans or foreclosed properties, reimburse us for losses 

or provide other remedies under certain circumstances, such as if it is determined that the mortgage loan did not meet our 

underwriting or eligibility requirements, if certain loan representations and warranties are violated or if mortgage insurers 

rescind coverage. However, under our revised representation and warranty framework, we no longer require repurchase for 

loans that have breaches of certain selling representations and warranties if they have met specified criteria for relief. Our 

business with mortgage servicers is concentrated. Our five largest single-family mortgage servicers, including their affiliates, 

serviced approximately 40% of our single-family guaranty book of business as of September 30, 2016, compared with 

approximately 44% as of December 31, 2015. Our five largest multifamily mortgage servicers, including their affiliates, 

serviced approximately 46% of our multifamily guaranty book of business as of September 30, 2016, compared with 

approximately 45% as of December 31, 2015.

If a significant mortgage seller or servicer counterparty, or a number of mortgage sellers or servicers, fails to meet their 

obligations to us, it could result in an increase in our credit losses and credit-related expense, and have a material adverse 

effect on our results of operations, liquidity, financial condition and net worth.

Mortgage Insurers. Mortgage insurance “risk in force” generally represents our maximum potential loss recovery under the 

applicable mortgage insurance policies. We had total mortgage insurance coverage risk in force of $124.2 billion and $117.9 

billion on the single-family mortgage loans in our guaranty book of business as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 

2015, respectively, which represented 4% of our single-family guaranty book of business as of September 30, 2016 and 

December 31, 2015. Our primary mortgage insurance coverage risk in force was $123.6 billion and $117.2 billion as of 

September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Our pool mortgage insurance coverage risk in force was $646 

million and $736 million as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. Our top four mortgage insurance 

companies provided 77% and 79% of our mortgage insurance coverage risk in force as of September 30, 2016 and 

December 31, 2015, respectively.

Of our largest primary mortgage insurers, PMI Mortgage Insurance Co., Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation and Republic 

Mortgage Insurance Company are under various forms of supervised control by their state regulators and are in run-off. 

Entering run-off may close off a source of profits and liquidity that may have otherwise assisted a mortgage insurer in paying 

claims under insurance policies, and could also cause the quality and speed of its claims processing to deteriorate. These three

mortgage insurers provided a combined $8.5 billion, or 7%, of our risk in force mortgage insurance coverage of our singlefamily guaranty book of business as of September 30, 2016.

Although the financial condition of our mortgage insurer counterparties currently approved to write new business has 

improved in recent years, there is still risk that these counterparties may fail to fulfill their obligations to pay our claims under 

insurance policies. If we determine that it is probable that we will not collect all of our claims from one or more of our 

mortgage insurer counterparties, it could result in an increase in our loss reserves, which could adversely affect our results of 

operations, liquidity, financial condition and net worth.

When we estimate the credit losses that are inherent in our mortgage loans and under the terms of our guaranty obligations 

we also consider the recoveries that we will receive on primary mortgage insurance, as mortgage insurance recoveries would 

reduce the severity of the loss associated with defaulted loans. We evaluate the financial condition of our mortgage insurer 

counterparties and adjust the contractually due recovery amounts to ensure that only probable losses as of the balance sheet 

date are included in our loss reserve estimate. As a result, if our assessment of one or more of our mortgage insurer 

counterparties’ ability to fulfill their respective obligations to us worsens, it could result in an increase in our loss reserves. As 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

110

of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, the amount by which our estimated benefit from mortgage insurance reduced 

our total loss reserves was $1.5 billion and $2.3 billion, respectively.

We had outstanding receivables of $1.0 billion recorded in “Other assets” in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of 

September 30, 2016 and $1.2 billion as of December 31, 2015 related to amounts claimed on insured, defaulted loans 

excluding government insured loans. Of this amount, $135 million as of September 30, 2016 and $241 million as of 

December 31, 2015 was due from our mortgage sellers or servicers. We assessed the total outstanding receivables for 

collectibility, and they are recorded net of a valuation allowance of $658 million as of September 30, 2016 and $770 million

as of December 31, 2015. The valuation allowance reduces our claim receivable to the amount which is considered probable 

of collection as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015.

For information on credit risk associated with our derivative transactions and repurchase agreements refer to “Note 9, 

Derivative Instruments” and “Note 14, Netting Arrangements.”

14. Netting Arrangements

We use master netting arrangements, which allow us to offset certain financial instruments and collateral with the same 

counterparty, to minimize counterparty credit exposure. The tables below display information related to derivatives, securities 

purchased under agreements to resell or similar arrangements, and securities sold under agreements to repurchase or similar 

arrangements, which are subject to an enforceable master netting arrangement or similar agreement that are either offset or 

not offset in our condensed consolidated balance sheets.

As of September 30, 2016

Net Amount

Presented in

our Condensed

Consolidated

Balance Sheets

Amounts Not Offset in our

Condensed Consolidated

Balance Sheets

Gross

Amount

Gross 

Amount 

Offset(1)

Financial 

Instruments(2) Collateral(3)

Net

Amount

(Dollars in millions)

Assets:

OTC risk management derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,760 $(4,737) $ 23 $ — $ — $ 23

Cleared risk management derivatives . . . . . . . . . . 1,512 (1,417) 95 — — 95

Mortgage commitment derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 349 — 349 (214) — 135

Total derivative assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,621 (6,154) 467 (4) (214) — 253

Securities purchased under agreements to resell 

or similar arrangements(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,600 — 40,600 — (40,600) —

Total assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 47,221 $(6,154) $ 41,067 $ (214) $(40,600) $ 253

Liabilities:

OTC risk management derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (7,739) $ 7,580 $ (159) $ — $ — $ (159)

Cleared risk management derivatives . . . . . . . . . . (4,848) 4,843 (5) — 5 —

Mortgage commitment derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . (537) — (537) 214 1 (322)

Total derivative liabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13,124) 12,423 (701)

(4) 214 6 (481)

Securities sold under agreements to repurchase or

similar arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (35) — (35) — 35 —

Total liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $(13,159) $12,423 $ (736) $ 214 $ 41 $ (481)
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

111

As of December 31, 2015

Net Amount

Presented in

our Condensed

Consolidated

Balance Sheets

Amounts Not Offset in our

Condensed Consolidated

Balance Sheets

Gross

Amount

Gross 

Amount 

Offset(1)

Financial 

Instruments(2) Collateral(3)

Net

Amount

(Dollars in millions)

Assets:

OTC risk management derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,042 $(4,021) $ 21 $ — $ (18) $ 3

Cleared risk management derivatives . . . . . . . . . . 708 (3) 705 — — 705

Mortgage commitment derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 — 140 (119) (3) 18

Total derivative assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,890 (4,024) 866 (4) (119) (21) 726

Securities purchased under agreements to resell 

or similar arrangements(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,950 — 37,950 — (37,950) —

Total assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 42,840 $(4,024) $ 38,816 $ (119) $ (37,971) $ 726

Liabilities:

OTC risk management derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (6,118) $ 5,861 $ (257) $ — $ — $ (257)

Cleared risk management derivatives . . . . . . . . . . (2,796) 2,789 (7) — — (7)

Mortgage commitment derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . (158) — (158) 119 (1) (40)

Total derivative liabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9,072) 8,650 (422)

(4) 119 (1) (304)

Securities sold under agreements to repurchase or

similar arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (62) — (62) — 62 —

Total liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (9,134) $ 8,650 $ (484) $ 119 $ 61 $ (304)

__________

(1) Represents the effect of the right to offset under legally enforceable master netting arrangements to settle with the same counterparty on 

a net basis, including cash collateral posted and received and accrued interest. 

(2) Mortgage commitment derivative amounts reflect where we have recognized both an asset and a liability with the same counterparty 

under an enforceable master netting arrangement but we have not elected to offset the related amounts in our condensed consolidated 

balance sheets. 

(3) Represents non-cash collateral received that has not been recognized and not offset in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as 

well as non-cash collateral posted which has been recognized but not offset in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. Does not 

include collateral held or posted in excess of our exposure. The fair value of non-cash collateral we pledged was $1.2 billion and $197 

million as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively, which the counterparty was permitted to sell or repledge. The 

fair value of non-cash collateral received was $40.7 billion and $38.0 billion, of which $37.4 billion and $36.2 billion could be sold or 

repledged as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. None of the underlying collateral was sold or repledged as of 

September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015. 

(4) Excludes derivative assets of $23 million and $28 million as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, and derivative liabilities 

of $1 million and $2 million recognized in our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 

2015, respectively, that are not subject to enforceable master netting arrangements.

(5) Includes $22.3 billion and $10.6 billion of securities purchased under agreements to resell classified as “Cash and cash equivalents” in 

our condensed consolidated balance sheets as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.

Derivative instruments are recorded at fair value and securities purchased under agreements to resell or similar arrangements 

are recorded at amortized cost in our condensed consolidated balance sheets.

We determine our rights to offset the assets and liabilities presented above with the same counterparty, including collateral 

posted or received, based on the contractual arrangements entered into with our individual counterparties and various rules 

and regulations that would govern the insolvency of a derivative counterparty. The following is a description, under various 

agreements, of the nature of those rights and their effect or potential effect on our financial position.

The terms of the majority of our contracts for OTC risk management derivatives are governed under master agreements of the 

International Swaps and Derivatives Association Inc. (“ISDA”). These agreements provide that all transactions entered into 

under the agreement with the counterparty constitute a single contractual relationship. An event of default by the counterparty 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

112

allows the early termination of all outstanding transactions under the same ISDA agreement and we may offset all 

outstanding amounts related to the terminated transactions including collateral posted or received.

The terms of our contracts for cleared derivatives are governed under the rules of the clearing organization and the agreement 

between us and the clearing member of that clearing organization. In the event of a clearing organization default, all open 

positions at the clearing organization are closed and a net position (on a clearing member by clearing member basis) is 

calculated. Unless otherwise transferred, in the event of a clearing member default, all open positions cleared through that 

clearing member are closed and a net position is calculated. 

The terms of our contracts for mortgage commitment derivatives are primarily governed by the Fannie Mae Single-Family 

Selling Guide (“Guide”), for Fannie Mae-approved lenders, or Master Securities Forward Transaction Agreements 

(“MSFTA”), for counterparties that are not Fannie Mae-approved lenders. In the event of default by the counterparty, both the 

Guide and the MSFTA allow us to terminate all outstanding transactions under the applicable agreement and offset all 

outstanding amounts related to the terminated transactions including collateral posted or received. Under the Guide, upon a 

lender event of default, we generally may offset any amounts owed to a lender against any amounts a lender may owe us 

under any other existing agreement, regardless of whether or not such other agreements are in default or payments are 

immediately due.

The terms of our contracts for securities purchased under agreements to resell and securities sold under agreements to 

repurchase are governed by Master Repurchase Agreements, which are based on the guidelines prescribed by the Securities 

Industry and Financial Markets Association. Master Repurchase Agreements provide that all transactions under the 

agreement constitute a single contractual relationship. An event of default by the counterparty allows the early termination of 

all outstanding transactions under the same agreement and we may offset all outstanding amounts related to the terminated 

transactions including collateral posted or received. 

We also have securities purchased under agreements to resell which we transact through the Fixed Income Clearing 

Corporation (“FICC”). Under the rules of the FICC, all agreements for securities purchased under agreements to resell that 

are submitted to the FICC for clearing become transactions with the FICC that are subject to FICC clearing rules. In the event 

of a FICC default, all open positions at the FICC are closed and a net position is calculated.

15. Fair Value

We use fair value measurements for the initial recording of certain assets and liabilities and periodic remeasurement of certain 

assets and liabilities on a recurring or nonrecurring basis. 

Fair Value Measurement

Fair value measurement guidance defines fair value, establishes a framework for measuring fair value and sets forth 

disclosures around fair value measurements. This guidance applies whenever other accounting guidance requires or permits 

assets or liabilities to be measured at fair value. The guidance establishes a three-level fair value hierarchy that prioritizes the 

inputs into the valuation techniques used to measure fair value. The fair value hierarchy gives the highest priority, Level 1, to 

measurements based on unadjusted quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. The next highest priority, 

Level 2, is given to measurements of assets and liabilities based on limited observable inputs or observable inputs for similar 

assets and liabilities. The lowest priority, Level 3, is given to measurements based on unobservable inputs. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

113

Recurring Changes in Fair Value 

The following tables display our assets and liabilities measured in our condensed consolidated balance sheets at fair value on 

a recurring basis subsequent to initial recognition, including instruments for which we have elected the fair value option.

Fair Value Measurements as of September 30, 2016

Quoted Prices

in Active

Markets for

Identical Assets

(Level 1)

Significant 

Other

Observable 

Inputs

(Level 2)

Significant 

Unobservable 

Inputs

(Level 3)

Netting 

Adjustment(1)

Estimated

Fair Value

(Dollars in millions)

Recurring fair value measurements:

Assets:

Trading securities:

Mortgage-related securities:

Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ — $ 4,931 $ — $ — $ 4,931

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 808 — — 808

Ginnie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,393 — — 1,393

Alt-A private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 48 265 — 313

Subprime private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . — 319 34 — 353

CMBS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,281 — — 1,281

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 191 — 191

Non-mortgage-related securities:

U.S. Treasury securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,277 — — — 31,277

Total trading securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,277 8,780 490 — 40,547

Available-for-sale securities:

Mortgage-related securities:

Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 2,712 — — 2,712

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 580 2 — 582

Ginnie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 61 — — 61

Alt-A private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,243 174 — 1,417

Subprime private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . — 1,871 48 — 1,919

CMBS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 978 — — 978

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1,725 — 1,725

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 35 436 — 471

Total available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 7,480 2,385 — 9,865

Mortgage loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 11,741 1,173 — 12,914

Other assets:

Risk management derivatives:

Swaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 6,018 212 — 6,230

Swaptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 43 — — 43

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 22 — 22

Netting adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — (6,154) (6,154)

Mortgage commitment derivatives. . . . . . . . . . . — 346 3 — 349

Total other assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 6,407 237 (6,154) 490

Total assets at fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 31,277 $ 34,408 $ 4,285 $ (6,154) $ 63,816
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

114

Fair Value Measurements as of September 30, 2016

Quoted Prices

in Active

Markets for

Identical Assets

(Level 1)

Significant 

Other

Observable 

Inputs

(Level 2)

Significant 

Unobservable 

Inputs

(Level 3)

Netting 

Adjustment(1)

Estimated

Fair Value

(Dollars in millions)

Liabilities:

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae:

Senior floating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ — $ 10,041 $ 419 $ — $ 10,460

Total of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 10,041 419 — 10,460

Of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 35,151 302 — 35,453

Total long-term debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 45,192 721 — 45,913

Other liabilities:

Risk management derivatives:

Swaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 12,407 10 — 12,417

Swaptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 170 — — 170

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1 — 1

Netting adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — (12,423) (12,423)

Mortgage commitment derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . — 527 10 — 537

Total other liabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 13,104 21 (12,423) 702

Total liabilities at fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ — $ 58,296 $ 742 $ (12,423) $ 46,615
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

115

Fair Value Measurements as of December 31, 2015

Quoted Prices

in Active

Markets for

Identical Assets

(Level 1)

Significant 

Other

Observable 

Inputs

(Level 2)

Significant 

Unobservable 

Inputs 

(Level 3)

Netting 

Adjustment(1)

Estimated

Fair Value

(Dollars in millions)

Assets:

Trading securities:

Mortgage-related securities:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ — $ 4,813 $ — $ — $ 4,813

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,314 — — 1,314

Ginnie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 426 — — 426

Alt-A private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 131 305 — 436

Subprime private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 644 — 644

CMBS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 2,341 — — 2,341

Mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 449 — 449

Non-mortgage-related securities:

U.S. Treasury securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,485 — — — 29,485

Total trading securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,485 9,025 1,398 — 39,908

Available-for-sale securities:

Mortgage-related securities:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 4,221 — — 4,221

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 4,295 4 — 4,299

Ginnie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 391 — — 391

Alt-A private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,637 1,041 — 2,678

Subprime private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 3,281 — 3,281

CMBS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,255 — — 1,255

Mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 2,701 — 2,701

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1,404 — 1,404

Total available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 11,799 8,431 — 20,230

Mortgage loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 12,598 1,477 — 14,075

Other assets:

Risk management derivatives:

Swaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 4,541 156 — 4,697

Swaptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 53 — — 53

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 28 — 28

Netting adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — (4,024) (4,024)

Mortgage commitment derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . — 135 5 — 140

Total other assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 4,729 189 (4,024) 894

Total assets at fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 29,485 $ 38,151 $ 11,495 $ (4,024) $ 75,107
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

116

Fair Value Measurements as of December 31, 2015

Quoted Prices

in Active

Markets for

Identical Assets

(Level 1)

Significant 

Other

Observable 

Inputs

(Level 2)

Significant 

Unobservable 

Inputs 

(Level 3)

Netting 

Adjustment(1)

Estimated

Fair Value

(Dollars in millions)

Liabilities:

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae:

Senior floating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ — $ 10,764 $ 369 $ — $ 11,133

Total of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 10,764 369 — 11,133

Of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 23,113 496 — 23,609

Total long-term debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 33,877 865 — 34,742

Other liabilities:

Risk management derivatives:

Swaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 8,697 20 — 8,717

Swaptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 197 — — 197

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 2 — 2

 Netting adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — (8,650) (8,650)

Mortgage commitment derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . — 148 10 — 158

Total other liabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 9,042 32 (8,650) 424

Total liabilities at fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ — $ 42,919 $ 897 $ (8,650) $ 35,166

__________

(1) Derivative contracts are reported on a gross basis by level. The netting adjustment represents the effect of the legal right to offset under 

legally enforceable master netting arrangements to settle with the same counterparty on a net basis, including cash collateral posted and 

received.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

117

The following tables display a reconciliation of all assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis using 

significant unobservable inputs (Level 3). The tables also display gains and losses due to changes in fair value, including both 

realized and unrealized gains and losses, recognized in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and 

comprehensive income for Level 3 assets and liabilities. When assets and liabilities are transferred between levels, we 

recognize the transfer as of the end of the period.

Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)

For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2016

Total Gains (Losses)

(Realized/Unrealized) Net Unrealized 

Gains (Losses) 

Included in Net 

Income Related to 

Assets and 

Liabilities Still 

Held as of 

September 30, 

2016(5)(6)

Balance,

June 30, 2016

Included

in Net

Income

Included in Total 

Other

Comprehensive 

Income (Loss)(1) Purchases(2) Sales(2) Issues(3) Settlements(3)

Transfers 

out of 

Level 3(4)

Transfers 

into 

Level 3(4)

Balance,

September

30, 2016

(Dollars in millions)

Trading securities:

Mortgage-related:

 Alt-A private-label

securities. . . . . . . . $ 259 $ 17 $ — $ — $ — $ — $ (11) $ — $ — $ 265 $ 17

Subprime privatelabel securities . . . 44 (9) — — — — (1) — — 34 (9)

Mortgage revenue

bonds . . . . . . . . . . 193 5 — — — — (7) — — 191 4

Total trading securities . $ 496 $ 13 (6)(7) $ — $ — $ — $ — $ (19) $ — $ — $ 490 $ 12

Available-for-sale

securities:

Mortgage-related:

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . $ 1 $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ 1 $ 2 $ —

 Alt-A private-label

securities. . . . . . . . 175 1 1 — — — (3) — — 174 —

 Subprime privatelabel securities . . . 173 79 (77) — (123) — (4) — — 48 —

 Mortgage revenue

bonds . . . . . . . . . . 2,029 35 (23) — (201) — (115) — — 1,725 —

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . 450 — 6 — — — (20) — — 436 —

Total available-for-sale

securities . . . . . . . . . $ 2,828 $ 115

(7)(8)

$ (93) $ — $ (324) $ — $ (142) $ — $ 1 $ 2,385 $ —

Mortgage loans. . . . . . . $ 1,280 $ 23

(6)(7)

$ — $ 4 $ (72) $ — $ (60) $ (17) $ 15 $ 1,173 $ 6

Net derivatives . . . . . . . 248 11 (6) — — — (1) (43) — 1 216 (18)

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae:

Senior floating. . . . $ (410) $ (9) $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ (419) $ (9)

Of consolidated trusts (326) (2) — — — (16) 11 95 (64) (302) —

Total long-term debt . . . $ (736) $ (11)

(6) $ — $ — $ — $ (16) $ 11 $ 95 $ (64) $ (721) $ (9)
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

118

Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)

For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2016

Total Gains (Losses)

(Realized/Unrealized) Net Unrealized 

Gains (Losses) 

Included in Net 

Income Related to 

Assets and 

Liabilities Still 

Held as of 

September 30, 

2016(5)(6)

Balance,

December 31,

2015

Included

in Net

Income

Included in Total 

Other

Comprehensive 

Income (Loss)(1) Purchases(2) Sales(2) Issues(3) Settlements(3)

Transfers 

out of 

Level 3(4)

Transfers 

into 

Level 3(4)

Balance,

September

30, 2016

(Dollars in millions)

Trading securities:

Mortgage-related:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ (1) $ (24) $ 25 $ — $ —

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . — — — — — — — (1) 1 — —

 Alt-A private-label

securities. . . . . . . . 305 (13) — — — — (27) — — 265 (13)

Subprime privatelabel securities . . . 644 (43) — — (187) — (17) (363) — 34 (19)

Mortgage revenue

bonds . . . . . . . . . . 449 34 — — (279) — (13) — — 191 14

Total trading securities . $ 1,398 $ (22)(6)(7) $ — $ — $ (466) $ — $ (58) $ (388) $ 26 $ 490 $ (18)

Available-for-sale

securities:

Mortgage-related:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ (1) $ 1 $ — $ —

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . 4 — — — — — — (3) 1 2 —

 Alt-A private-label

securities. . . . . . . . 1,041 13 (26) — (291) — (47) (516) — 174 —

 Subprime privatelabel securities . . . 3,281 171 (209) — (707) — (165) (2,323) — 48 —

 Mortgage revenue

bonds . . . . . . . . . . 2,701 115 25 — (812) — (304) — — 1,725 —

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,404 — (20) — (605) — (59) (284) — 436 —

Total available-for-sale

securities . . . . . . . . . $ 8,431 $ 299

(7)(8)

$ (230) $ — $ (2,415) $ — $ (575) $ (3,127) $ 2 $ 2,385 $ —

Mortgage loans. . . . . . . $ 1,477 $ 139

(6)(7)

$ — $ 29 $ (392) $ — $ (199) $ (101) $ 220 $ 1,173 $ 24

Net derivatives . . . . . . . 157 243 (6) — — — (8) (176) (2) 2 216 41

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae:

Senior floating. . . . $ (369) $ (50) $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ (419) $ (50)

Of consolidated trusts (496) (77) — — — (70) 329 140 (128) (302) (9)

Total long-term debt . . . $ (865) $ (127)

(6) $ — $ — $ — $ (70) $ 329 $ 140 $ (128) $ (721) $ (59)
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

119

Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)

For the Three Months Ended September 30, 2015

Total Gains (Losses)

(Realized/Unrealized) Net Unrealized 

Gains (Losses) 

Included in Net 

Income Related to 

Assets and 

Liabilities Still 

Held as of 

September 30, 

2015(5)(6)

Balance,

June 30, 2015

Included

in Net

Income

Included in 

Total Other

Comprehensive 

Income (Loss)(1) Purchases(2) Sales(2) Issues(3) Settlements(3)

Transfers 

out of 

Level 3(4)

Transfers 

into 

Level 3(4)

Balance,

September

30, 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Trading securities:

Mortgage-related:

 Alt-A private-label

securities. . . . . . . . . $ 325 $ (3) $ — $ — $ — $ — $ (7) $ — $ — $ 315 $ (3)

Subprime privatelabel securities . . . . 718 (5) — — — — (17) — — 696 (5)

Mortgage revenue

bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . 602 (19) — — — — (4) — — 579 (19)

Total trading securities . . $ 1,645 $ (27)

(6)(7)

$ — $ — $ — $ — $ (28) $ — $ — $ 1,590 $ (27)

Available-for-sale

securities:

Mortgage-related:

Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . $ 129 $ — $ — $ — $ (122) $ — $ (8) $ — $ 1 $ — $ —

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . 4 — — — — — — (1) 1 4 —

 Alt-A private-label

securities. . . . . . . . . 1,654 2 (8) — — — (178) — 24 1,494 —

 Subprime privatelabel securities . . . . 3,837 33 (45) — — — (148) — — 3,677 —

 Mortgage revenue

bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . 3,171 4 (29) — (8) — (205) — — 2,933 —

 Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,158 73 (95) — (644) — (48) — — 1,444 —

Total available-for-sale

securities . . . . . . . . . .

$ 10,953 $ 112

(7)(8)

$ (177) $ — $ (774) $ — $ (587) $ (1) $ 26 $ 9,552 $ —

Mortgage loans . . . . . . . . $ 1,595 $ 9

(6)(7)

$ — $ — $ — $ — $ (97) $ (77) $ 70 $ 1,500 $ (24)

Net derivatives . . . . . . . . 4 79 (6) — — — — (32) — 9 60 28

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae:

Senior floating . . . . . $ (346) $ (23) $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ (369) $ (23)

Of consolidated trusts. . (493) — — — — (64) 18 33 (65) (571) —

Total long-term debt . . . . $ (839) $ (23)

(6) $ — $ — $ — $ (64) $ 18 $ 33 $ (65) $ (940) $ (23)
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

120

Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)

For the Nine Months Ended September 30, 2015

Total Gains (Losses)

(Realized/Unrealized) Net Unrealized 

Gains (Losses) 

Included in Net 

Income Related to 

Assets and 

Liabilities Still 

Held as of 

September 30, 

2015(5)(6)

Balance,

December 31,

2014

Included

in Net

Income

Included in Total 

Other

Comprehensive 

Income (Loss)(1) Purchases(2) Sales(2) Issues(3) Settlements(3)

Transfers 

out of 

Level 3(4)

Transfers 

into 

Level 3(4)

Balance,

September

30, 2015

(Dollars in millions)

Trading securities:

Mortgage-related:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . $ 305 $ (27) $ — $ — $ (2) $ — $ — $ (278) $ 2 $ — $ —

 Alt-A private-label

securities . . . . . . . . . 597 41 — — (267) — (40) (44) 28 315 (3)

Subprime privatelabel securities. . . . . 1,307 38 — — (580) — (69) — — 696 (2)

Mortgage revenue

bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . 722 (17) — — (118) — (8) — — 579 (17)

 Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 4 — — (100) — (3) — — — —

Total trading securities. . . $ 3,030 $ 39

(6)(7)

$ — $ — $ (1,067) $ — $ (120) $ (322) $ 30 $ 1,590 $ (22)

Available-for-sale

securities:

Mortgage-related:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . $ — $ — $ — $ 421 $ (425) $ — $ (8) $ — $ 12 $ — $ —

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . 6 — — — — — (1) (2) 1 4 —

 Alt-A private-label

securities . . . . . . . . . 3,140 174 (124) — (1,108) — (387) (538) 337 1,494 —

 Subprime private-label

securities . . . . . . . . . 5,240 478 (277) — (1,325) — (439) — — 3,677 —

 Mortgage revenue

bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . 4,023 44 (56) — (324) — (754) — — 2,933 —

 Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,671 (20) (10) — (1,012) — (185) — — 1,444 —

Total available-for-sale

securities. . . . . . . . . . .

$ 15,080 $ 676

(7)(8)

$ (467) $ 421 $ (4,194) $ — $ (1,774) $ (540) $ 350 $ 9,552 $ —

Mortgage loans . . . . . . . . $ 1,833 $ 47

(6)(7)

$ — $ 5 $ — $ — $ (273) $ (331) $ 219 $ 1,500 $ (17)

Net derivatives. . . . . . . . . 45 (20)

(6) — — — — 26 — 9 60 23

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae:

Senior floating . . . . . $ (363) $ (6) $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ (369) $ (6)

Of consolidated trusts. . (527) (8) — — — (64) 43 142 (157) (571) 11

Total long-term debt. . . . . $ (890) $ (14)

(6) $ — $ — $ — $ (64) $ 43 $ 142 $ (157) $ (940) $ 5

__________

(1) Gains (losses) included in other comprehensive income (loss) are included in “Changes in unrealized gains on AFS securities, net of 

reclassification adjustments and taxes” in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

(2) Purchases and sales include activity related to the consolidation and deconsolidation of assets of securitization trusts.

(3) Issues and settlements include activity related to the consolidation and deconsolidation of liabilities of securitization trusts.

(4) Transfers out of Level 3 consisted primarily of private-label mortgage-related securities backed by Alt-A loans and subprime loans. 

Prices for these securities were available from multiple third-party vendors and have demonstrated an increased and sustained level of 

observability over time. Transfers into Level 3 consisted primarily of private-label mortgage-related securities backed by Alt-A loans. 

Prices for these securities were based on inputs from a single source or inputs that were not readily observable during that time.

(5) Amount represents temporary changes in fair value. Amortization, accretion and OTTI are not considered unrealized and are not 

included in this amount.

(6) Gains (losses) are included in “Fair value losses, net” in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive 

income.

(7) Gains (losses) are included in “Net interest income” in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive 

income.

(8) Gains (losses) are included in “Investment gains, net” in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive 

income.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

121

The following tables display valuation techniques and the range and the weighted average of significant unobservable inputs 

for our Level 3 assets and liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis.

Fair Value Measurements as of September 30, 2016

Fair

Value

Significant Valuation

Techniques

Significant 

Unobservable Inputs(1) Range(1)

Weighted - 

Average(1)

(Dollars in millions)

Recurring fair value measurements:

Trading securities:

Mortgage-related securities:

Alt-A private-label securities(2). . . . . . . $ 38 Single Vendor Default Rate (%) 1.8 1.8

Prepayment Speed (%) 6.0 6.0

Severity (%) 37.0 37.0

Spreads (bps) 296.3 296.3

227 Consensus Default Rate (%) 2.0 - 4.0 3.5

Prepayment Speed (%) 4.0 - 9.0 7.7

Severity (%) 37.0 - 95.0 80.0

Spreads (bps) 247.5 - 427.4 380.8

Total Alt-A private-label securities. . . 265

Subprime private-label securities(2). . . . 34 Consensus Default Rate (%) 5.0 5.0

Prepayment Speed (%) 5.0 5.0

Severity (%) 75.0 75.0

Spreads (bps) 608.7 608.7

Total subprime private-label securities 34

Mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 Discounted Cash Flow Spreads (bps) 10.0 - 292.8 290.0

2 Other

Total mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . 191

Total trading securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 490
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

122

Fair Value Measurements as of September 30, 2016

Fair

Value

Significant Valuation

Techniques

Significant 

Unobservable Inputs(1) Range(1)

Weighted - 

Average(1)

(Dollars in millions)

Available-for-sale securities:

Mortgage-related securities:

Agency(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2 Other

Alt-A private-label securities(2). . . . . . . 32 Single Vendor Default Rate (%) 5.2 - 8.0 7.2

Prepayment Speed (%) 7.9 - 8.0 8.0

Severity (%) 53.0 - 55.0 54.4

Spreads (bps) 275.3 - 298.5 282.3

82 Consensus Default Rate (%) 2.5 - 6.0 2.9

Prepayment Speed (%) 3.0 - 8.0 3.6

Severity (%) 60.0 - 65.0 60.6

Spreads (bps) 232.7 - 307.8 299.1

45 Discounted Cash Flow Spreads (bps) 430.0 - 434.0 432.0

15 Other

Total Alt-A private-label securities. . . 174

Subprime private-label securities(2). . . . 48 Other

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . 828 Single Vendor Spreads (bps) (17.9) - 371.9 38.2

785 Discounted Cash Flow Spreads (bps) (17.9) - 406.4 276.4

112 Other

Total mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . 1,725

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49 Consensus Default Rate (%) 3.5 3.5

Prepayment Speed (%) 2.5 2.5

Severity (%) 88.0 88.0

Spreads (bps) 247.0 - 346.9 285.0

354 Discounted Cash Flow Default Rate (%) 2.3 2.3

Prepayment Speed (%) 0.5 0.5

Severity (%) 35.0 35.0

Spreads (bps) 190.0 - 450.0 449.1

33 Other

Total other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436

Total available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . $ 2,385
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

123

Fair Value Measurements as of September 30, 2016

Fair

Value

Significant Valuation

Techniques

Significant 

Unobservable Inputs(1) Range(1)

Weighted - 

Average(1)

(Dollars in millions)

Mortgage loans:

Single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 545 Build-Up

267 Consensus

201 Other

Total single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,013

Multifamily. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160 Build-Up Spreads (bps) 66.0 - 376.2 179.8

Total mortgage loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,173

Net derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 202 Dealer Mark

14 Other

Total net derivatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 216

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae:

Senior floating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (419) Discounted Cash Flow

Of consolidated trusts(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . (302) Other

Total long-term debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (721)
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

124

Fair Value Measurements as of December 31, 2015

Fair

Value

Significant Valuation

Techniques

Significant 

Unobservable Inputs(1) Range(1)

Weighted - 

Average(1)

(Dollars in millions)

Recurring fair value measurements:

Trading securities:

Mortgage-related securities:

Alt-A private-label securities(2). . . . . . . . $ 305 Consensus Default Rate (%) 1.3 - 4.9 3.6

Prepayment Speed (%) 2.2 - 4.5 3.7

Severity (%) 20.5 - 95.0 69.3

Spreads (bps) 219.0 - 263.3 253.1

Total Alt-A private-label securities. . . . 305

Subprime private-label securities(2). . . . . 526 Consensus Default Rate (%) 4.2 - 8.4 5.9

Prepayment Speed (%) 0.4 - 5.3 3.3

Severity (%) 55.9 - 95.0 73.7

Spreads (bps) 285.0 285.0

73 Consensus

45 Other

Total subprime private-label securities . 644

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 Discounted Cash Flow Spreads (bps) 1.5 - 376.2 298.9

12 Other

Total mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . 449

Total trading securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,398
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

125

Fair Value Measurements as of December 31, 2015

Fair

Value

Significant Valuation

Techniques

Significant 

Unobservable Inputs(1) Range(1)

Weighted - 

Average(1)

(Dollars in millions)

Available-for-sale securities:

Mortgage-related securities:

Agency(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4 Other

Alt-A private-label securities(2). . . . . . . 671 Consensus Default Rate (%) 0.5 - 40.7 3.4

Prepayment Speed (%) 1.7 - 72.6 13.5

Severity (%) 1.4 - 95.0 58.5

Spreads (bps) 225.6 - 280.4 260.0

201 Consensus

169 Discounted Cash Flow Default Rate (%) 4.0 - 5.0 4.8

Prepayment Speed (%) 4.0 - 7.5 6.4

Severity (%) 50.0 - 64.0 59.2

Spreads (bps) 260.0 - 369.4 296.5

Total Alt-A private-label securities. . . 1,041

Subprime private-label securities(2). . . . 343 Single Vendor Default Rate (%) 2.5 - 7.5 4.8

Prepayment Speed (%) 1.9 - 5.7 3.3

Severity (%) 67.6 - 85.7 72.7

Spreads (bps) 285.0 - 340.0 299.6

1,848 Consensus Default Rate (%) 0.5 - 11.3 5.9

Prepayment Speed (%) 0.5 - 11.2 3.8

Severity (%) 20.0 - 95.0 79.0

Spreads (bps) 255.0 - 285.0 283.3

945 Consensus

145 Other

Total subprime private-label securities 3,281

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . 991 Single Vendor Spreads (bps) (33.1) - 386.8 37.9

1,462 Discounted Cash Flow Spreads (bps) (15.8) - 379.1 283.8

248 Other

Total mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . 2,701

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 683 Consensus Default Rate (%) 0.5 - 4.6 3.4

Prepayment Speed (%) 2.5 - 15.5 4.7

Severity (%) 6.6 - 95.0 65.7

Spreads (bps) 200.0 - 454.4 315.6

520 Discounted Cash Flow Default Rate (%) 0.0 - 1.8 0.0

Prepayment Speed (%) 0.0 - 0.5 0.0

Severity (%) 95.0 95.0

Spreads (bps) 260.0 - 350.0 323.6

201 Other

Total other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,404

Total available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . $ 8,431
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

126

Fair Value Measurements as of December 31, 2015

Fair

Value

Significant Valuation

Techniques

Significant 

Unobservable Inputs(1) Range(1)

Weighted - 

Average(1)

(Dollars in millions)

Mortgage loans:

Single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 127 Build-Up Default Rate (%) 0.0 - 99.2 34.8

Prepayment Speed (%) 3.0 - 100.0 10.4

Severity (%) 0.0 - 100.0 39.9

632 Build-Up

234 Consensus Default Rate (%) 0.5 - 5.0 3.7

Prepayment Speed (%) 2.5 - 26.0 6.4

Severity (%) 20.0 - 89.1 69.0

Spreads (bps) 255.0 - 277.6 264.6

274 Consensus

54 Other

Total single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,321

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 Build-Up Spreads (bps) 70.0 - 327.2 158.8

Total mortgage loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,477

Net derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 17 Internal Model

136 Dealer Mark

4 Other

Total net derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 157

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae:

Senior floating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (369) Discounted Cash Flow

Of consolidated trusts(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . (181) Consensus Default Rate (%) 0.5 - 3.8 3.4

Prepayment Speed (%) 2.5 - 26.0 5.6

Severity (%) 20.0 - 80.6 67.8

Spreads (bps) 255.0 - 270.0 265.8

(149) Consensus

(166) Other

Total of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . (496)

Total long-term debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (865)

_________

(1) Valuation techniques for which no unobservable inputs are disclosed generally reflect the use of third-party pricing services or dealers, 

and the range of unobservable inputs applied by these sources is not readily available or cannot be reasonably estimated. Where we 

have disclosed unobservable inputs for consensus and single vendor techniques, those inputs are based on our validations performed at 

the security level using discounted cash flows.

(2) Default rate as disclosed represents the estimated beginning annualized rate of default and is used as a basis to forecast the future 

default rates that serve as an input for valuation.

(3) Includes Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac securities.

(4) Includes instruments for which the prepayment speed as disclosed represents the estimated annualized rate of prepayment after all 

prepayment penalty provisions have expired and also instruments for which prepayment speed as disclosed represents the estimated rate 

of prepayment over the remaining life of the instrument.

In our condensed consolidated balance sheets certain assets and liabilities are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis; 

that is, the instruments are not measured at fair value on an ongoing basis but are subject to fair value adjustments in certain 

circumstances (for example, when we evaluate loans for impairment). We did not have any Level 1 assets or liabilities held as 

of September 30, 2016 or December 31, 2015 that were measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis. We held $475 million

and $17 million in Level 2 assets, comprised of mortgage loans held for sale, and no Level 2 liabilities that were measured at 

fair value on a nonrecurring basis as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

127

The following table displays valuation techniques for our Level 3 assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis. The 

significant unobservable inputs related to these techniques primarily relate to collateral dependent valuations. The related 

ranges and weighted averages are not meaningful when aggregated as they vary significantly from property to property.

Fair Value Measurements

(Level 3) of Assets Held as of

Valuation Techniques

September 30,

2016

December 31,

2015

(Dollars in millions)

Nonrecurring fair value measurements:

Mortgage loans held for sale, at lower of cost or fair value. . . . . . . . . Consensus $ 909 $ 3,651

Single Vendor 32 336

Other 5 4

Total mortgage loans held for sale, at lower of cost or fair value . . . 946 3,991

Single-family mortgage loans held for investment, at amortized cost. Internal Model 3,296 6,379

Multifamily mortgage loans held for investment, at amortized cost . . Broker Price Opinions 22 82

Asset Manager Estimate 222 236

Other 3 5

Total multifamily mortgage loans held for investment, at amortized

cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 323

Acquired property, net:

Single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accepted Offers 402 541

Appraisals 684 1,117

Walk Forwards 323 433

Internal Model 458 986

Other 64 134

Total single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,931 3,211

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other 2 —

Other assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other 10 30

Total nonrecurring assets at fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,432 $ 13,934

We use valuation techniques that maximize the use of observable inputs and minimize the use of unobservable inputs. The 

following is a description of the valuation techniques we use for fair value measurement and disclosure as well as our basis 

for classifying these measurements as Level 1, Level 2 or Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy in more specific situations. 

Trading Securities and Available-for-Sale Securities

These securities are recorded in our condensed consolidated balance sheets at fair value on a recurring basis. Fair value is 

measured using quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets, when available.

We classify securities whose values are based on quoted market prices in active markets for identical assets as Level 1 of the 

valuation hierarchy. We classify securities in active markets as Level 2 of the valuation hierarchy if quoted market prices in 

active markets for identical assets are not available. For all valuation techniques used for securities where there is limited 

activity or less transparency around these inputs to the valuation, these securities are classified as Level 3 of the valuation 

hierarchy.

A description of our securities valuation techniques is as follows:

Single Vendor: This valuation technique utilizes one vendor price to estimate fair value. We generally validate these 

observations of fair value through the use of a discounted cash flow technique whose unobservable inputs (for example, 

default rates) are disclosed in the table above.

Dealer Mark: This valuation technique utilizes one dealer price to estimate fair value. We generally validate these 

observations of fair value through the use of a discounted cash flow technique whose unobservable inputs (for example, 

default rates) are disclosed in the table above.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

128

Consensus: This technique utilizes an average of two or more vendor prices for similar securities. We generally validate these 

observations of fair value through the use of a discounted cash flow technique whose unobservable inputs (for example, 

default rates) are disclosed in the table above.

Discounted Cash Flow: In the absence of prices provided by third-party pricing services supported by observable market 

data, we estimate the fair value of a portion of our securities using a discounted cash flow technique that uses inputs such as 

default rates, prepayment speeds, loss severity and spreads based on market assumptions where available.

For private-label securities, an increase in unobservable prepayment speeds in isolation would generally result in an increase 

in fair value, and an increase in unobservable spreads, severity rates or default rates in isolation would generally result in a 

decrease in fair value. For mortgage revenue bonds classified as Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy, an increase in 

unobservable spreads would result in a decrease in fair value. Although the sensitivities of the fair value of our recurring 

Level 3 securities of the valuation hierarchy to various unobservable inputs are discussed above in isolation, 

interrelationships exist among these inputs such that a change in one unobservable input typically results in a change to one 

or more of the other inputs.

Mortgage Loans Held for Investment

The majority of HFI loans are reported in our condensed consolidated balance sheets at the principal amount outstanding, net 

of cost basis adjustments and an allowance for loan losses. We estimate the fair value of HFI loans using the build-up and 

consensus valuation techniques, as discussed below, for periodic disclosure of financial instruments as required by GAAP. 

For our remaining loans, which include those containing embedded derivatives that would otherwise require bifurcation and 

consolidated loans of senior-subordinated trust structures, we elected the fair value option and therefore, we record these 

loans at fair value in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. We measure these loans on a recurring basis using the buildup, consensus, discounted cash flow and single vendor price techniques. Certain impaired loans are measured at fair value on 

a nonrecurring basis by using the fair value of their underlying collateral. Specific techniques used include internal models, 

broker price opinions and appraisals.

A description of our loan valuation techniques is as follows:

Build-up: We derive the fair value of mortgage loans primarily using a build-up valuation technique. In the build-up valuation 

technique we start with the base value for our Fannie Mae MBS and then add or subtract the fair value of the associated 

guaranty asset, guaranty obligation (“GO”) and master servicing arrangement. We use observable market values of Fannie 

Mae MBS with similar characteristics, either on a pool or loan level, determined primarily from third party pricing services, 

quoted market prices in active markets for similar securities, and other observable market data as a base value. We set the GO 

equal to the estimated fair value we would receive if we were to issue our guaranty to an unrelated party in a stand-alone 

arm’s length transaction at the measurement date. We estimate the fair value of the GO using our internal valuation models, 

which calculate the present value of expected cash flows based on management’s best estimate of certain key assumptions 

such as current mark-to-market LTV ratios, future house prices, default rates, severity rates and required rate of return. We 

also estimate the fair value of the GO using our current guaranty pricing and adjust that pricing, as appropriate, for the 

seasoning of the collateral when such transactions reflect credit characteristics of loans held in our portfolio. As a result, the 

fair value of our mortgage loans will change when the pricing for our credit guaranty changes in the GSE securitization 

market.

Our performing loans are generally classified as Level 2 of the valuation hierarchy to the extent that significant inputs are 

observable. To the extent that unobservable inputs are significant, the loans are classified as Level 3 of the valuation 

hierarchy.

Consensus: The fair value of single-family nonperforming and certain reperforming loans represents an estimate of the prices 

we would receive if we were to sell these loans in the whole-loan market. Key factors that influence the price of these loans 

include collateral value, estimated loan cash flows and mortgage insurance. Collateral value is derived from the current 

estimated mark-to-market LTV ratio of the individual loan and, where appropriate, a state-level distressed property sales 

discount. Cash flow characteristics include attributes such as the weighted average coupon rate and loan payment history. The 

fair value of mortgage insurance is estimated by taking the loan level coverage and adjusting it by the expected claims paying 

ability of the associated mortgage insurer. The expected claims paying abilities used for estimating the fair value of mortgage 

insurance are consistent with our credit loss forecast. Fair value is estimated from the extrapolation of indicative sample bids 

obtained from multiple active market participants plus the estimated value of any applicable mortgage insurance. These loans 

are classified as Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy because significant inputs are unobservable. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

129

We estimate the fair value for a portion of our senior-subordinated trust structures using the average of two or more vendor 

prices at the security level as a proxy for estimating loan fair value. These loans are classified as Level 3 of the valuation 

hierarchy because significant inputs are unobservable.

Discounted Cash Flow: We estimate the fair value of a portion of our senior-subordinated trust structures using discounted 

cash flow at the security level as a proxy for estimating loan fair value. This valuation technique uses unobservable inputs 

such as prepayment speeds, default rates, spreads, and loss severities to estimate the fair value of our securities. These inputs 

are weighted in a model that calculates the expected cash flow of the security which is used as the basis of fair value. These 

loans are classified as Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy because significant inputs are unobservable. 

Single Vendor: We estimate the fair value of our reverse mortgages using the single vendor valuation technique. These loans 

are classified as Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy because significant inputs are unobservable. 

Internal Model: For loans whose value it has been determined should be based on collateral value, we use an internal 

proprietary distressed home price model. The internal model used in this process takes one of two approaches when valuing 

the collateral. 

The first approach relies on comparable foreclosed property sales to estimate the value of the target collateral. The 

comparable foreclosed property sales approach uses various factors such as geographic distance, transaction time and the 

value difference. The second approach referred to as the median Metropolitan Statistical Area (“MSA”) is based on the 

median of all the foreclosure sales of REOs in a specific MSA. Using this sales price, MSA level discount is computed and 

applied to the estimated non distressed value to derive an estimated fair value. If there are not enough REO sales in a specific 

MSA, a median state level foreclosure discount is used to estimate the fair value. 

The majority of the internal model valuations come from the comparable sales approach. The determination of whether the 

internal model valuations in a particular geographic area should use the comparable sales approach or median MSA is based 

on historical accuracy. These loans are classified as Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy because significant inputs are 

unobservable.

Appraisals: For a portion of our multifamily loans, we use appraisals to estimate the fair value of the loan. There are three 

approaches used to estimate fair value of a specific property: (1) cost, (2) income capitalization and (3) sales comparison. The 

cost approach uses the insurable value as a basis. The unobservable inputs used in this model include the estimated cost to 

construct or replace multifamily properties in the closest localities available. The income capitalization approach estimates 

the fair value using the present value of the future cash flow expectations by applying an appropriate capitalization rate to the 

forecasted net operating income. The significant unobservable inputs used in this calculation include rental income, fees 

associated with rental income, expenses associated with the property including taxes, payroll, insurance and other items, and 

capitalization rates, which are determined through market extraction and the DSCR. The sales comparison approach 

compares the prices paid for similar properties, the prices asked by owners and offers made. The unobservable inputs to this 

methodology include ratios of sales prices to annual gross income, price paid per unit and adjustments made based on 

financing, conditions of sale and physical characteristics of the property. These loans are classified as Level 3 of the valuation 

hierarchy because significant inputs are unobservable. 

Broker Price Opinion (“BPO”): For a portion of our multifamily loans, we use BPO to estimate the fair value of the loan. 

This technique uses both current property value and the property value adjusted for stabilization and market conditions. 

These approaches compute net operating income based on current rents and expenses and use a range of market capitalization 

rates to estimate property value. The unobservable inputs used in this technique are property net operating income and market 

capitalization rates to estimate property value. These loans are classified as Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy because 

significant inputs are unobservable. 

Asset Manager Estimate (“AME”): For a portion of our multifamily loans, AME is used to estimate the fair value of the loan. 

This technique uses the net operating income and tax assessments of the specific property as well as MSA-specific market 

capitalization rates and average per unit sales values to estimate property fair value. These loans are classified as Level 3 of 

the valuation hierarchy because significant inputs are unobservable. 

An increase in prepayment speeds in isolation would generally result in an increase in the fair value of our mortgage loans 

classified as Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy, and an increase in severity rates, default rates or spreads in isolation would 

generally result in a decrease in fair value. Although the sensitivities of the fair value of mortgage loans classified as Level 3 

of the valuation hierarchy to various unobservable inputs are discussed above in isolation, interrelationships exist among 

these inputs such that a change in one unobservable input typically results in a change to one or more of the other inputs. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

130

Acquired Property, Net and Other Assets

Acquired property, net represents foreclosed property received in full satisfaction of a loan net of a valuation allowance. 

Acquired property is initially recorded in our condensed consolidated balance sheets at its fair value less its estimated cost to 

sell. The initial fair value of foreclosed properties is determined using a hierarchy based on the reliability of available 

information. The hierarchy for single-family acquired property includes accepted offers, appraisals, broker price opinions and 

proprietary home price model values. The hierarchy for multifamily acquired property includes accepted offers, appraisals 

and broker price opinions. We consider an accepted offer on a specific foreclosed property to be the best estimate of its fair 

value. If we have not accepted an offer on the property we use the next highest priority valuation methodology available, as 

described in our valuation hierarchy to determine fair value. While accepted offers represent an agreement in principle to 

transact, a significant portion of these agreements do not get executed for various reasons, and are therefore classified as 

Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy. 

Third-party valuations can be obtained from either an appraisal or a broker price opinion. These valuations are kept current 

using a monthly walk forward process that updates them for changes in market conditions. When accepted offers or thirdparty valuations are not available, we generally utilize the home price values determined using an internal model. 

Subsequent to initial measurement, the foreclosed properties that we intend to sell are reported at the lower of the carrying 

amount or fair value less estimated costs to sell. Foreclosed properties classified as held for use, included in “Other assets” in 

our condensed consolidated balance sheets, are depreciated and impaired when circumstances indicate that the carrying 

amount of the property is no longer recoverable. The fair values of our single-family foreclosed properties subsequent to 

initial measurement are determined using the same information hierarchy used for the initial fair value measurement. 

The most commonly used techniques in our valuation of acquired property are proprietary home price model and third-party 

valuations (both current and walk forward). Based on the number of properties measured as of September 30, 2016, these 

methodologies comprised approximately 74% of our valuations, while accepted offers comprised approximately 20% of our 

valuations. Based on the number of properties measured as of December 31, 2015, these methodologies comprised 

approximately 77% of our valuations, while accepted offers comprised approximately 18% of our valuations.

Acquired property is classified as Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy because significant inputs are unobservable. 

A description of our acquired property significant valuation techniques is as follows: 

Single-family acquired property valuation techniques 

Appraisal: An appraisal is an estimate of the value of a specific property by a certified or licensed appraiser, in accordance 

with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. Data most commonly used is from the local Multiple Listing 

Service and includes properties currently listed for sale, properties under contract, and closed transactions. The appraiser 

performs an analysis that starts with these data points and then adjusts for differences between the comparable properties and 

the property being appraised, to arrive at an estimated value for the specific property. Adjustments are made for differences 

between comparable properties for unobservable inputs such as square footage, location, and condition of the property. The 

appraiser typically uses recent historical data for the estimate of value. 

Broker Price Opinion: This technique provides an estimate of what the property is worth based upon a real estate broker’s 

knowledge. The broker uses research of pertinent data in the appropriate market, and a sales comparison approach that is 

similar to the appraisal process. The broker typically has insight into local market trends, such as the number of and terms of 

offers, lack of offers, increasing supply, shortage of inventory and overall interest in buying a home. This information, all of 

which is unobservable, is used along with recent and pending sales and current listings of similar properties to arrive at an 

estimate of value. 

We review the appraisals and broker price opinions received to determine if they have been performed in accordance with 

applicable standards and if the results are consistent with our observed transactions on similar properties. We make necessary 

adjustments as required.

Appraisal and Broker Price Opinion Walk Forwards (“Walk Forwards”): We use these techniques to adjust appraisal and 

broker price opinion valuations for changing market conditions by applying a walk forward factor based on local price 

movements since the time the third-party value was obtained. The majority of third-party values are updated by comparing 

the difference in our internal home price model from the month of the original appraisal/broker price opinion to the current 

period and by applying the resulting percentage change to the original value. If a price is not determinable through our 

internal home price model, we use our zip code level home price index to update the valuations. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

131

Internal Model: We use an internal model to estimate fair value for distressed properties. The valuation methodology and 

inputs used are described under “Mortgage Loans Held for Investment.” 

Multifamily acquired property valuation techniques 

Appraisals: We use this method to estimate property values for distressed properties. The valuation methodology and inputs 

used are described under “Mortgage Loans Held for Investment.” 

Broker Price Opinions: We use this method to estimate property values for distressed properties. The valuation methodology 

and inputs used are described under “Mortgage Loans Held for Investment.” 

Derivatives Assets and Liabilities (collectively “Derivatives”)

Derivatives are recorded in our condensed consolidated balance sheets at fair value on a recurring basis. The valuation 

process for the majority of our risk management derivatives uses observable market data provided by third-party sources, 

resulting in Level 2 classification of the valuation hierarchy. 

A description of our derivatives valuation techniques is as follows: 

Internal Model: We use internal models to value interest rate swaps which are valued by referencing yield curves derived 

from observable interest rates and spreads to project and discount swap cash flows to present value. Option-based derivatives 

use an internal model that projects the probability of various levels of interest rates by referencing swaption volatilities 

provided by market makers/dealers. The projected cash flows of the underlying swaps of these option-based derivatives are 

discounted to present value using yield curves derived from observable interest rates and spreads. 

Dealer Mark: Certain highly complex structured swaps primarily use a single dealer mark due to lack of transparency in the 

market and may be modeled using observable interest rates and volatility levels as well as significant unobservable 

assumptions, resulting in Level 3 classification of the valuation hierarchy. Mortgage commitment derivatives that use 

observable market data, quotes and actual transaction price levels adjusted for market movement are typically classified as 

Level 2 of the valuation hierarchy. To the extent mortgage commitment derivatives include adjustments for market movement 

that cannot be corroborated by observable market data, we classify them as Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy. 

Debt

The majority of debt of Fannie Mae is recorded in our condensed consolidated balance sheets at the principal amount 

outstanding, net of cost basis adjustments. We elected the fair value option for certain structured Fannie Mae debt instruments 

and debt of consolidated trusts with embedded derivatives, which are recorded in our condensed consolidated balance sheets 

at fair value on a recurring basis. 

We classify debt instruments that have quoted market prices in active markets for similar liabilities when traded as assets as 

Level 2 of the valuation hierarchy. For all valuation techniques used for debts instruments where there is limited activity or 

less transparency around these inputs to the valuation, these debt instruments are classified as Level 3 of the valuation 

hierarchy.

A description of our debt valuation techniques is as follows: 

Consensus: We estimate the fair value of debt of Fannie Mae and our debt of consolidated trusts using an average of two or 

more vendor prices or dealer marks that represents estimated fair value for similar liabilities when traded as assets. 

Single Vendor: We estimate the fair value of debt of Fannie Mae and our debt of consolidated trusts using a single vendor 

price that represents estimated fair value for these liabilities when traded as assets. 

Discounted Cash Flow: In the absence of prices provided by third-party pricing services supported by observable market 

data, we estimate the fair value of a portion of the debt of Fannie Mae and our debt of consolidated trusts using a discounted 

cash flow technique that uses spreads based on market assumptions where available. 

The valuation methodology and inputs used in estimating the fair value of MBS assets are described under “Trading 

Securities and Available-for-Sale Securities.” 

Valuation Control Processes

We have control processes that are designed to ensure that our fair value measurements are appropriate and reliable, that they 

are based on observable inputs wherever possible and that our valuation approaches are consistently applied and the 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

132

assumptions used are reasonable. Our control processes consist of a framework that provides for a segregation of duties and 

oversight of our fair value methodologies and valuations, as well as validation procedures. 

The Pricing and Valuation Group, along with the Credit Valuation team, are responsible for the estimation and verification of 

the fair value for the majority of our financial assets and financial liabilities. These groups also provide updates to the 

Finance Committee on relevant market information, pricing trends, significant valuation challenges and the resolution of 

those challenges. The Pricing and Valuation Group, along with the Credit Valuation team, reside within our Finance Division 

and are independent of any trading or market related activities. Fair value measurements for acquired property and collateral 

dependent loans are determined by other valuation groups in the Finance Division.

Our Finance Committee includes senior representation from our Capital Markets segment, our Enterprise Risk Management 

and our Finance Division, and is responsible for reviewing and approving the methods used in valuing financial instruments 

for the purpose of financial reporting. The composition of the Finance Committee is set forth in its charter, which was 

approved by the Chief Executive Officer. Based on its review of valuation methodologies and fair value results for various 

financial instruments used for financial reporting, the Finance Committee has the ultimate responsibility over all valuation 

processes and results.

We use third-party vendor prices and dealer quotes to estimate fair value of some of our financial assets and liabilities. Thirdparty vendor prices are primarily used to estimate fair value for trading securities, available-for-sale securities, debt of Fannie 

Mae and consolidated MBS debt. Our Pricing and Valuation Group performs various review and validation procedures prior 

to utilizing these prices in our fair value estimation process. We validate prices, using a variety of methods, including 

corroborating the prices by reference to other independent market data, such as non-binding broker or dealer quotations, 

relevant benchmark indices and prices of similar instruments. We also review prices for reasonableness based on variations 

from prices provided in previous periods, comparing prices to internally estimated prices, using primarily a discounted cash 

flow approach, and conducting relative value comparisons based on specific characteristics of securities. 

We have discussions with the pricing vendors as part of our due diligence process in order to maintain a current 

understanding of the valuation processes and related assumptions and inputs that these vendors use in developing prices. The 

prices provided to us by third-party pricing services reflect the existence of market reliance upon credit enhancements, if any, 

and the current levels of liquidity in the marketplace. If we determine that a price provided to us is outside established 

parameters or in certain other circumstances, we will further examine the price, including having follow-up discussions with 

the pricing service or dealer. If we conclude that a price is not valid, we will adjust the price for various factors, such as 

liquidity, bid-ask spreads and credit considerations. All of these procedures are executed before we use the prices in preparing 

our financial statements.

Our Real Estate Property Valuation Group utilizes third-party appraisals and broker price opinions along with internal models 

and market data to compare the values received on a property and determine the valuation risk based on several factors 

including the deviation between the various values. The property valuation team reviews the valuations with higher valuation 

risk for reasonableness. The internal models utilized in the process are subject to oversight from the Model Risk Management 

Group, which is responsible for establishing risk management controls and for reviewing models used in the determination of 

fair value measurements for financial reporting. In addition, our Quality Control Group reviews the work performed and 

inspects a portion of the properties in major markets, for which the third-party valuations are obtained, in order to assess the 

quality of the valuations. 

For fair value reporting purposes, we mark each property in inventory each month, incorporating the values assigned by the 

property valuation team along with other information including accepted offers and predictions from our proprietary 

distressed home price model.

We calibrate the performance of our proprietary distressed home price model using actual offers in recently observed 

transactions. The model’s performance is reviewed on a monthly basis by the REO valuation team and compared quarterly to 

specific model performance thresholds. The results of the validation are regularly reviewed with the Finance Committee. 

Our Real Estate Property Valuation Group reviews appraisals and broker price opinions to determine the most appropriate 

value by comparing data within these products with current comparable properties and market data. We conduct regular 

performance reviews of the counterparties that provide products and services for this process. In addition, valuation results 

and trend analyses are reviewed regularly by management responsible for valuing and disposing of real estate.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

133

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

The following table displays the carrying value and estimated fair value of our financial instruments. The fair value of 

financial instruments we disclose includes commitments to purchase multifamily and single-family mortgage loans that we 

do not record in our condensed consolidated balance sheets. The fair values of these commitments are included as “Mortgage 

loans held for investment, net of allowance for loan losses.” The disclosure excludes all non-financial instruments; therefore, 

the fair value of our financial assets and liabilities does not represent the underlying fair value of our total consolidated assets 

and liabilities.

As of September 30, 2016

Carrying

Value

Quoted

Prices in

Active

Markets for

Identical

Assets

(Level 1)

Significant

Other

Observable

Inputs

(Level 2)

Significant

Unobservable

Inputs

(Level 3)

Netting

Adjustment

Estimated

Fair Value

(Dollars in millions)

Financial assets:

Cash and cash equivalents and restricted

cash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 69,485 $ 47,235 $ 22,250 $ — $ — $ 69,485

Federal funds sold and securities purchased

under agreements to resell or similar

arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,350 — 18,350 — — 18,350

Trading securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40,547 31,277 8,780 490 — 40,547

Available-for-sale securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,865 — 7,480 2,385 — 9,865

Mortgage loans held for sale . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,405 — 1,020 2,789 — 3,809

Mortgage loans held for investment, net of

allowance for loan losses:

Of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195,100 — 24,145 184,970 — 209,115

Of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,850,456 — 2,703,713 231,972 — 2,935,685

Mortgage loans held for investment . . . . . . . 3,045,556 — 2,727,858 416,942 — 3,144,800

Advances to lenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,627 — 6,271 382 — 6,653

Derivative assets at fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 — 6,407 237 (6,154) 490

Guaranty assets and buy-ups. . . . . . . . . . . . . 152 — — 450 — 450

Total financial assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,194,477 $ 78,512 $ 2,798,416 $ 423,675 $ (6,154) $ 3,294,449

Financial liabilities:

Federal funds purchased and securities sold

under agreements to repurchase. . . . . . . . . $ 35 $ — $ 35 $ — $ — $ 35

Short-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51,442 — 51,457 — — 51,457

Of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 612 — — 612 — 612

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 300,126 — 312,323 886 — 313,209

Of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,880,933 — 2,934,252 37,376 — 2,971,628

Derivative liabilities at fair value . . . . . . . . . 702 — 13,104 21 (12,423) 702

Guaranty obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 — — 714 — 714

Total financial liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,234,132 $ — $ 3,311,171 $ 39,609 $ (12,423) $ 3,338,357
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

134

As of December 31, 2015

Carrying

Value

Quoted

Prices in

Active

Markets for

Identical

Assets

(Level 1)

Significant

Other

Observable

Inputs

(Level 2)

Significant

Unobservable

Inputs

(Level 3)

Netting

Adjustment

Estimated

Fair Value

(Dollars in millions)

Financial assets:

Cash and cash equivalents and restricted

cash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 45,553 $ 34,953 $ 10,600 $ — $ — $ 45,553

Federal funds sold and securities purchased

under agreements to resell or similar

arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,350 — 27,350 — — 27,350

Trading securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,908 29,485 9,025 1,398 — 39,908

Available-for-sale securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,230 — 11,799 8,431 — 20,230

Mortgage loans held for sale . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,361 — 157 5,541 — 5,698

Mortgage loans held for investment, net of

allowance for loan losses:

Of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206,544 — 26,544 193,670 — 220,214

Of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,807,739 — 2,675,982 157,685 — 2,833,667

Mortgage loans held for investment . . . . . . . 3,014,283 — 2,702,526 351,355 — 3,053,881

Advances to lenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,308 — 3,902 394 — 4,296

Derivative assets at fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . 894 — 4,729 189 (4,024) 894

Guaranty assets and buy-ups. . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 — — 544 — 544

Total financial assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,158,071 $ 64,438 $ 2,770,088 $ 367,852 $ (4,024) $ 3,198,354

Financial liabilities:

Federal funds purchased and securities sold

under agreements to repurchase. . . . . . . . . $ 62 $ — $ 62 $ — $ — $ 62

Short-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,007 — 71,006 — — 71,006

Of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943 — — 944 — 944

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315,128 — 324,248 898 — 325,146

Of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,810,593 — 2,819,733 27,175 — 2,846,908

Derivative liabilities at fair value . . . . . . . . . 424 — 9,042 32 (8,650) 424

Guaranty obligations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329 — — 1,012 — 1,012

Total financial liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,198,486 $ — $ 3,224,091 $ 30,061 $ (8,650) $ 3,245,502

Financial Instruments for which fair value approximates carrying value—We hold certain financial instruments that are not 

carried at fair value but for which the carrying value approximates fair value due to the short-term nature and negligible 

credit risk inherent in them. These financial instruments include cash and cash equivalents, the majority of advances to 

lenders, and federal funds and securities sold/purchased under agreements to repurchase/resell.

Federal funds and securities sold/purchased under agreements to repurchase/resell—The carrying value for the majority of 

these specific instruments approximates the fair value due to the short-term nature and the negligible inherent credit risk, as 

they involve the exchange of collateral that is easily traded. If we were to calculate the fair value of these instruments we 

would use observable inputs resulting in Level 2 classification.

Mortgage Loans Held for Sale—Loans are reported at the lower of cost or fair value in our condensed consolidated balance 

sheets. The valuation methodology and inputs used in estimating the fair value of HFS loans are the same as for our HFI 

loans and are described under “Fair Value Measurement—Mortgage Loans Held for Investment.” These loans are classified 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

135

as Level 2 of the valuation hierarchy to the extent that significant inputs are observable. To the extent that significant inputs 

are unobservable, the loans are classified within Level 3 of the valuation hierarchy.

HARP Loans—We measure the fair value of loans that are delivered under the Home Affordable Refinance Program 

(“HARP”) using a modified build-up approach while the loan is performing. Under this modified approach, we set the credit 

component of the consolidated loans (that is, the guaranty obligation) equal to the compensation we would currently receive 

for a loan delivered to us under the program because the total compensation for these loans is equal to their current exit price 

in the GSE securitization market. For a description of the build-up valuation methodology, refer to “Fair Value Measurement

—Mortgage Loans Held for Investment.” We will continue to use this pricing methodology as long as the HARP program is 

available to market participants. If, subsequent to delivery, the refinanced loan becomes past due or is modified as a part of a 

troubled debt restructuring, the fair value of the guaranty obligation is then measured consistent with other loans that have 

similar characteristics.

The total compensation that we receive for the delivery of a HARP loan reflects the pricing that we are willing to offer 

because HARP is a part of a broader government program intended to provide assistance to homeowners and prevent 

foreclosures. 

Advances to Lenders—The carrying value for the majority of our advances to lenders approximates fair value due to the 

short-term nature and the negligible inherent credit risk. If we were to calculate the fair value of these instruments we would 

use discounted cash flow models that use observable inputs such as spreads based on market assumptions, resulting in Level 

2 classification.

Advances to lenders also include loans for which the carrying value does not approximate fair value. These loans do not 

qualify for Fannie Mae MBS securitization and are valued using market-based techniques including credit spreads, severities 

and prepayment speeds for similar loans, through third-party pricing services or through a model approach incorporating both 

interest rate and credit risk simulating a loan sale via a synthetic structure. We classify these valuations as Level 3 given that 

significant inputs are not observable or are determined by extrapolation of observable inputs.

Guaranty Assets and Buy-ups—Guaranty assets related to our portfolio securitizations are recorded in our condensed 

consolidated balance sheets at fair value on a recurring basis and are classified as Level 3. Guaranty assets in lender swap 

transactions are recorded in our condensed consolidated balance sheets at the lower of cost or fair value. These assets, which 

are measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis, are also classified as Level 3.

We estimate the fair value of guaranty assets based on the present value of expected future cash flows of the underlying 

mortgage assets using management’s best estimate of certain key assumptions, which include prepayment speeds, forward 

yield curves, and discount rates commensurate with the risks involved. These cash flows are projected using proprietary 

prepayment, interest rate and credit risk models. Because guaranty assets are like an interest-only income stream, the 

projected cash flows from our guaranty assets are discounted using one-month LIBOR plus an option-adjusted spread that is 

calibrated using a representative sample of interest-only swaps that reference Fannie Mae MBS. We believe the remitted fee 

income is less liquid than interest-only swaps and more like an excess servicing strip. Therefore, we take a further discount of 

the present value for these liquidity considerations. This discount is based on market quotes from third-party pricing services.

The fair value of the guaranty assets includes the fair value of any associated buy-ups. 

Guaranty Obligations—The fair value of all guaranty obligations, measured subsequent to their initial recognition, is our 

estimate of a hypothetical transaction price we would receive if we were to issue our guaranty to an unrelated party in a 

standalone arm’s-length transaction at the measurement date. These obligations are classified as Level 3. The valuation 

methodology and inputs used in estimating the fair value of the guaranty obligations are described under “Fair Value 

Measurement—Mortgage Loans Held for Investment—Build-up.”

Fair Value Option

We elected the fair value option for our credit risk sharing debt securities issued under our CAS series issued prior to 

January 1, 2016 and certain loans that contain embedded derivatives that would otherwise require bifurcation. Under the fair 

value option, we elected to carry these instruments at fair value instead of bifurcating the embedded derivative from such 

instruments. 

We elected the fair value option for all long-term structured debt instruments that are issued in response to specific investor 

demand and have interest rates that are based on a calculated index or formula and are economically hedged with derivatives 

at the time of issuance. By electing the fair value option for these instruments, we are able to eliminate the volatility in our 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

136

results of operations that would otherwise result from the accounting asymmetry created by recording these structured debt 

instruments at cost while recording the related derivatives at fair value. 

We elected the fair value option for the financial assets and liabilities of the consolidated senior-subordinate trust structures. 

By electing the fair value option for these instruments, we are able to eliminate the volatility in our results of operations that 

would otherwise result from different accounting treatment between loans at cost and debt at cost. 

Interest income for the mortgage loans is recorded in “Interest income—Mortgage loans” and interest expense for the debt 

instruments is recorded in “Interest expense—Long-term debt” in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and 

comprehensive income. 

The following table displays the fair value and unpaid principal balance of the financial instruments for which we have made 

fair value elections.

As of

September 30, 2016 December 31, 2015

Loans(1)

Long-Term

Debt of

Fannie Mae

Long-Term Debt of

Consolidated

Trusts Loans(1)

Long-Term

Debt of

Fannie Mae

Long-Term Debt of

Consolidated

Trusts

(Dollars in millions)

Fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12,914 $ 10,460 $ 35,453 $ 14,075 $ 11,133 $ 23,609

Unpaid principal balance . . . 12,173 9,924 31,633 13,661 11,263 21,604

__________

(1) Includes nonaccrual loans with a fair value of $159 million and $238 million as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, 

respectively. The difference between unpaid principal balance and the fair value of these nonaccrual loans as of September 30, 2016 and 

December 31, 2015 was $32 million and $59 million, respectively. Includes loans that are 90 days or more past due with a fair value of 

$156 million and $256 million as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015, respectively. The difference between unpaid principal 

balance and the fair value of these 90 or more days past due loans as of September 30, 2016 and December 31, 2015 was $26 million

and $52 million, respectively.

Changes in Fair Value under the Fair Value Option Election

The following table displays fair value gains and losses, net, including changes attributable to instrument-specific credit risk, 

for loans and debt for which the fair value election was made. Amounts are recorded as a component of “Fair value losses, 

net” in our condensed consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. 

For the Three Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Loans

LongTerm Debt

Total

Gains

(Losses) Loans

LongTerm Debt

Total

Gains

(Losses)

(Dollars in millions)

Changes in instrument-specific credit risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 14 $ (389) $ (375) $ 73 $ 150 $ 223

Other changes in fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 (65) (17) (15) (81) (96)

Fair value gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 62 $ (454) $ (392) $ 58 $ 69 $ 127

For the Nine Months Ended September 30,

2016 2015

Loans

LongTerm Debt

Total

Gains

(Losses) Loans

LongTerm Debt

Total

Gains

(Losses)

(Dollars in millions)

Changes in instrument-specific credit risk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 46 $ (610) $ (564) $ 110 $ 45 $ 155

Other changes in fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392 (511) (119) (65) (42) (107)

Fair value gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 438 $(1,121) $ (683) $ 45 $ 3 $ 48
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

137

In determining the changes in the instrument-specific credit risk for loans, the changes in the associated credit-related 

components of these loans, primarily the guaranty obligation, were taken into consideration with the change in the fair value 

of the loans for which we elected the fair value option for financial instruments. In determining the changes in the 

instrument-specific credit risk for debt, the changes in Fannie Mae debt spreads to LIBOR that occurred during the period 

were taken into consideration with the change in the fair value of the debt for which we elected the fair value option for 

financial instruments. Specifically, cash flows are evaluated taking into consideration any derivatives through which Fannie 

Mae has swapped out of the structured features of the notes and thus created a floating-rate LIBOR-based debt instrument. 

The change in value of these LIBOR-based cash flows based on the Fannie Mae yield curve at the beginning and end of the 

period represents the instrument-specific credit risk.

16. Commitments and Contingencies

We are party to various types of legal actions and proceedings, including actions brought on behalf of various classes of 

claimants. We also are subject to regulatory examinations, inquiries and investigations, and other information gathering 

requests. In some of the matters, indeterminate amounts are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits 

considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify 

the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the 

jurisdiction of the trial court. This variability in pleadings, together with our and our counsel’s actual experience in litigating 

or settling claims, leads us to conclude that the monetary relief that may be sought by plaintiffs bears little relevance to the 

merits or disposition value of claims. 

On a quarterly basis, we review relevant information about all pending legal actions and proceedings for the purpose of 

evaluating and revising our contingencies, accruals and disclosures. 

We have substantial and valid defenses to the claims in the proceedings described below and intend to defend these matters 

vigorously. However, legal actions and proceedings of all types are subject to many uncertain factors that generally cannot be 

predicted with assurance. Accordingly, the outcome of any given matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular 

points in time is frequently difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary 

evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how courts will apply the law. Disposition valuations 

are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel may view the evidence and applicable law. 

We establish an accrual for matters when a loss is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of such loss. For legal 

actions or proceedings where there is only a reasonable possibility that a loss may be incurred, or where we are not currently 

able to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss, we do not establish an accrual. We are often unable to estimate 

the possible losses or ranges of losses, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development, where 

plaintiffs seek indeterminate or unspecified damages, where there may be novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the 

proceedings, or where settlement negotiations have not occurred or progressed. 

Given the uncertainties involved in any action or proceeding, regardless of whether we have established an accrual, the 

ultimate resolution of certain of these matters may be material to our operating results for a particular period, depending on, 

among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of our net income or loss for that period. 

In addition to the matters specifically described below, we are involved in a number of legal and regulatory proceedings that 

arise in the ordinary course of business that we do not expect will have a material impact on our business or financial 

condition. We have also advanced fees and expenses of certain current and former officers and directors in connection with 

various legal proceedings pursuant to our bylaws and indemnification agreements. 

Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements Litigation

A number of putative class action lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against us, FHFA

as our conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac from July through September 2013 by shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or 

Freddie Mac challenging the August 2012 amendment to each company’s senior preferred stock purchase agreement with 

Treasury. These lawsuits were consolidated and, on December 3, 2013, plaintiffs (preferred and common shareholders of 

Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac) filed a consolidated class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia against us, FHFA as our conservator, Treasury and Freddie Mac (“In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred 

Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations”). The preferred shareholder plaintiffs allege that the net worth sweep 

dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendments to the 

senior preferred stock purchase agreements nullified certain of the shareholders’ rights, particularly the right to receive 

dividends. The common shareholder plaintiffs allege that the August 2012 amendments constituted a taking of their property 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

(UNAUDITED)

138

by requiring that all future profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be paid to Treasury. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of 

contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, a takings claim 

against FHFA and Treasury, and a breach of fiduciary duty claim derivatively on our and Freddie Mac’s behalf against FHFA

and Treasury. Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of preferred and/or common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or 

Freddie Mac who held stock as of the public announcement of the August 2012 amendments. Plaintiffs seek unspecified 

damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees.

A non-class action suit, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae, was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia on September 20, 2013 by preferred shareholders against us, FHFA as our conservator, the Director of FHFA (in 

his official capacity), Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury (in his official capacity) and Freddie Mac. Plaintiffs bring claims 

for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, 

and claims for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act against the FHFA and Treasury defendants, alleging that the net 

worth sweep dividend provisions nullified certain rights of the preferred shareholders, particularly the right to receive 

dividends. Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees.

On September 30, 2014, the court dismissed both lawsuits and plaintiffs in both suits filed timely notices of appeal. On 

October 27, 2014, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit consolidated these appeals with appeals in two other cases 

involving the same subject matter, but to which we are not a party. The D.C. Circuit heard oral argument on these appeals on 

April 15, 2016.

On June 26, 2016, shareholder David J. Voacolo filed a lawsuit, Voacolo v. Fannie Mae, in the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia against Fannie Mae, FHFA and Treasury alleging a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. 

Plaintiff seeks damages and a holding that the August 2012 amendment to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement was 

arbitrary, capricious or not otherwise in accordance with the law. The defendants filed motions to dismiss on September 20, 

2016.

Given the stage of these lawsuits, the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are 

currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.
139

Item 3. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk

Information about market risk is set forth in “MD&A—Risk Management—Market Risk Management, Including Interest 

Rate Risk Management.”

Item 4. Controls and Procedures

Overview

We are required under applicable laws and regulations to maintain controls and procedures, which include disclosure controls 

and procedures as well as internal control over financial reporting, as further described below.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Disclosure Controls and Procedures

Disclosure controls and procedures refer to controls and other procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that 

information required to be disclosed in the reports we file or submit under the Exchange Act is recorded, processed, 

summarized and reported within the time periods specified in the rules and forms of the SEC. Disclosure controls and 

procedures include, without limitation, controls and procedures designed to provide reasonable assurance that information 

required to be disclosed by us in the reports that we file or submit under the Exchange Act is accumulated and communicated 

to management, including our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, as appropriate, to allow timely decisions 

regarding our required disclosure. In designing and evaluating our disclosure controls and procedures, management 

recognizes that any controls and procedures, no matter how well designed and operated, can provide only reasonable 

assurance of achieving the desired control objectives, and management was required to apply its judgment in evaluating and 

implementing possible controls and procedures.

Evaluation of Disclosure Controls and Procedures

As required by Rule 13a-15 under the Exchange Act, management has evaluated, with the participation of our Chief 

Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, the effectiveness of our disclosure controls and procedures as in effect as of 

September 30, 2016, the end of the period covered by this report. As a result of management’s evaluation, our Chief 

Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer concluded that our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective at a 

reasonable assurance level as of September 30, 2016 or as of the date of filing this report.

Our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of September 30, 2016 or as of the date of filing this report 

because they did not adequately ensure the accumulation and communication to management of information known to FHFA

that is needed to meet our disclosure obligations under the federal securities laws. As a result, we were not able to rely upon 

the disclosure controls and procedures that were in place as of September 30, 2016 or as of the date of this filing, and we 

continue to have a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. This material weakness is described in 

more detail below under “Description of Material Weakness.” Based on discussions with FHFA and the structural nature of 

this material weakness, we do not expect to remediate this material weakness while we are under conservatorship.

Description of Material Weakness

The Public Company Accounting Oversight Board’s Auditing Standard No. 5 defines a material weakness as a deficiency or a 

combination of deficiencies in internal control over financial reporting, such that there is a reasonable possibility that a 

material misstatement of the company’s annual or interim financial statements will not be prevented or detected on a timely 

basis.

Management has determined that we continued to have the following material weakness as of September 30, 2016 and as of 

the date of filing this report:

• Disclosure Controls and Procedures. We have been under the conservatorship of FHFA since September 6, 2008. 

Under the GSE Act, FHFA is an independent agency that currently functions as both our conservator and our regulator 

with respect to our safety, soundness and mission. Because of the nature of the conservatorship under the GSE Act, 

which places us under the “control” of FHFA (as that term is defined by securities laws), 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. Although we and FHFA attempted to design and implement disclosure policies and procedures that would 

account for the conservatorship and accomplish the same objectives as a disclosure controls and procedures policy of 

a typical reporting company, there are inherent structural limitations on our ability to design, implement, test or 
140

operate effective disclosure controls and procedures. As both our regulator and our conservator under the GSE Act, 

FHFA is limited in its ability to design and implement a complete set of disclosure controls and procedures relating to 

Fannie Mae, particularly with respect to current reporting pursuant to Form 8-K. Similarly, as a regulated entity, we 

are limited in our ability to design, implement, operate and test the controls and procedures for which FHFA is 

responsible.

Due to these circumstances, 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 

condensed consolidated financial statements. As a result, we did not maintain effective controls and procedures 

designed to ensure complete and accurate disclosure as required by GAAP as of September 30, 2016 or as of the date 

of filing this report. Based on discussions with FHFA and the structural nature of this weakness, we do not expect to 

remediate this material weakness while we are under conservatorship.

Mitigating Actions Relating to Material Weakness

As described above under “Description of Material Weakness,” we continue to have a material weakness in our internal 

control over financial reporting relating to our disclosure controls and procedures. However, we and FHFA have engaged in 

the following practices intended to permit accumulation and communication to management of information needed to meet 

our disclosure obligations under the federal securities laws:

• FHFA has established the Division of Conservatorship, which is intended to facilitate operation of the company with 

the oversight of the conservator.

• We have provided drafts of our SEC filings to FHFA personnel for their review and comment prior to filing. We also 

have provided drafts of external press releases, statements and speeches to FHFA personnel for their review and 

comment prior to release.

• FHFA personnel, including senior officials, have reviewed our SEC filings prior to filing, including this Quarterly 

Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2016 (“Third Quarter 2016 Form 10-Q”), and engaged in 

discussions regarding issues associated with the information contained in those filings. Prior to filing our Third 

Quarter 2016 Form 10-Q, FHFA provided Fannie Mae management with a written acknowledgment that it had 

reviewed the Third Quarter 2016 Form 10-Q, and it was not aware of any material misstatements or omissions in the 

Third Quarter 2016 Form 10-Q and had no objection to our filing the Third Quarter 2016 Form 10-Q.

• The Director of FHFA and our Chief Executive Officer have been in frequent communication, typically meeting on 

at least a bi-weekly basis.

• FHFA representatives attend meetings frequently with various groups within the company to enhance the flow of 

information and to provide oversight on a variety of matters, including accounting, credit and market risk 

management, external communications and legal matters.

• Senior officials within FHFA’s Office of the Chief Accountant have met frequently with our senior finance 

executives regarding our accounting policies, practices and procedures.

Changes in Internal Control over Financial Reporting

Management has evaluated, with the participation of our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer, whether any 

changes in our internal control over financial reporting that occurred during our last fiscal quarter have materially affected, or 

are reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting. There have been no changes in our 

internal control over financial reporting since June 30, 2016 that management believes have materially affected, or are 

reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
141

PART II—OTHER INFORMATION

Item 1. Legal Proceedings

The information in this item supplements and updates information regarding certain legal proceedings set forth in “Legal 

Proceedings” in our 2015 Form 10-K, our First Quarter 2016 Form 10-Q and our Second Quarter 2016 Form 10-Q. We also 

provide information regarding material legal proceedings in “Note 16, 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 accruals for legal claims when losses associated with those 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 

accrued 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 condensed 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 item or in our 2015 Form 10-K, our First Quarter 2016 Form 10-Q or our Second Quarter 2016 Form 10-

Q. If certain of these matters are determined against us, FHFA or Treasury, it could have a material adverse effect on our 

results of operations, liquidity and financial condition, including our net worth. 

Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements Litigation 

Between June 2013 and October 2016, several lawsuits were filed by preferred and common stockholders of Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the U.S. District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Iowa, the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Delaware, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, the U.S. District Court for the Northern 

District of Illinois and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas against one or more of the United States, 

Treasury and FHFA, challenging actions taken by the defendants relating to the senior preferred stock purchase agreements 

and the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Some of these lawsuits also contain claims against Fannie Mae and 

Freddie Mac. The legal claims being advanced by one or more of these lawsuits include challenges to the net worth sweep 

dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendments to the 

agreements, the payment of dividends to Treasury under the net worth sweep dividend provisions, and FHFA’s decision to 

require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to draw funds from Treasury in order to pay dividends to Treasury prior to the August 

2012 amendments. The plaintiffs seek various forms of equitable and injunctive relief, including rescission of the August 

2012 amendments, as well as damages. 

On September 30, 2014, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed all but one of the cases pending before 

that court. The plaintiffs in each of the dismissed cases filed a notice of appeal and on October 27, 2014, the U.S. Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit consolidated these appeals. The plaintiffs in the case that was not dismissed by the court 

voluntarily dismissed their lawsuit on October 31, 2014. On February 3, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern 

District of Iowa dismissed the case pending before it. On April 15, 2016, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit heard 

oral argument on the consolidated appeals. On September 9, 2016, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of 

Kentucky dismissed the case pending before it. The matters where Fannie Mae is a named defendant are described below or 

in “Note 16, Commitments and Contingencies.”

Fannie Mae is a nominal defendant in two actions filed against the United States in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims: Fisher 

v. United States of America, filed on December 2, 2013, and Rafter v. United States of America, filed on August 14, 2014. 

Plaintiffs in these cases allege that the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock that were 

implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendment to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement constitute a taking of 

Fannie Mae’s property without just compensation in violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Fisher plaintiffs are pursuing this 

claim derivatively on behalf of Fannie Mae, while the Rafter plaintiffs are pursing the claim directly against the United 

States. Plaintiffs in Rafter also allege a derivative claim that the government breached an implied contract with Fannie Mae’s 

Board of Directors by implementing the net worth sweep dividend provisions. Plaintiffs in Fisher request just compensation 

to Fannie Mae in an unspecified amount. Plaintiffs in Rafter seek just compensation for themselves on their constitutional 

claim and payment of damages to Fannie Mae on their derivative claim for breach of an implied contract. The United States 

filed a motion to dismiss the Fisher case on January 23, 2014; however, the court has stayed proceedings in this case until 

discovery in a related case, Fairholme Funds v. United States, is complete and the court sets a date for the Fairholme Funds 

plaintiffs to respond to the government’s motion to dismiss filed in that case. In the Rafter case, the court has ordered the 

government to file a response to the complaint within sixty days after discovery is complete in the Fairholme Funds case.
142

Fannie Mae is also a nominal defendant in a case filed against FHFA and Treasury in the U.S. District Court for the District 

of Delaware: Jacobs v. FHFA, filed on August 17, 2015. The plaintiffs allege that the net worth sweep dividend provisions of 

the senior preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendments to the agreements violate 

Delaware law. The plaintiffs are pursuing this claim derivatively on behalf of Fannie Mae and directly against the 

government. The plaintiffs have also alleged direct breach of contract claims and breach of fiduciary duty claims against the 

government. The government filed motions to dismiss the case on November 13, 2015. 

On March 14, 2016, Timothy Pagliara filed a lawsuit against Fannie Mae in the Delaware Court of Chancery: Pagliara v. 

Federal National Mortgage Association. The plaintiff owns Fannie Mae preferred stock and seeks access to Fannie Mae’s 

books and records under a provision of Delaware state law. The plaintiff alleges that he is entitled to inspect Fannie Mae’s 

books and records in order to investigate potential breaches of duties to stockholders related to the net worth sweep dividend 

provisions of the senior preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendment to the senior 

preferred stock purchase agreement, as well as Fannie Mae’s involvement in the common securitization platform, Common 

Securitization Solutions, LLC, and the single security. On March 25, 2016, Fannie Mae and FHFA removed the case to the 

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. On July 18, 2016, FHFA filed a motion to substitute itself for the plaintiff.

Item 1A. Risk Factors

In addition to the information in this report, you should carefully consider the risks relating to our business that we identify in 

“Risk Factors” in our 2015 Form 10-K. This section supplements and updates that discussion. For a complete understanding 

of the subject, you should read both together. Please also refer to “MD&A—Risk Management” in this report and in our 2015

Form 10-K for more detailed descriptions 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 forwardlooking statements contained in this report. However, these are not the only risks we face. In addition to the risks we discuss 

below and in our 2015 Form 10-K, we face risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently believe are 

immaterial. 

The future of our company is uncertain. 

There continues to be 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, how long we will be in conservatorship, 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, and whether we will continue to exist following conservatorship. The conservatorship is 

indefinite in duration and the timing, conditions and likelihood of our emerging from conservatorship are uncertain. 

Termination of the conservatorship, other than in connection with a receivership, requires Treasury’s consent under the senior 

preferred stock purchase agreement.

In 2011, the Administration 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 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. In 2013, the White House released a paper confirming that a 

core principle of the Administration’s housing policy priorities is to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac through a 

responsible transition. In 2015, the White House reaffirmed the Administration’s view that housing finance reform should 

include ending Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s business model. 

Last year, Congress continued to consider legislation that could materially affect our business if enacted. We expect that 

Congress will continue to hold hearings and consider legislation on the future status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, 

including proposals that would result in Fannie Mae’s liquidation or dissolution. Congress or FHFA may also consider 

legislation or regulation aimed at increasing the competition we face, reducing our market share, expanding our obligations to 

provide funds to Treasury or constraining our business operations. We cannot predict the prospects for the enactment, timing 

or final content of housing finance reform legislation or other legislation related to our activities. See “Business—Housing 

Finance Reform” in our 2015 Form 10-K for more information about the Administration’s statements and Congressional 

proposals regarding housing finance reform.
143

Changes in accounting standards and policies 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, the FASB or the SEC changes the financial accounting and reporting standards or the policies 

that govern the preparation of our financial statements. In addition, FHFA provides guidance that affects our adoption or 

implementation of financial accounting or reporting standards. These changes can be difficult to predict and expensive to 

implement, and can materially impact how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. We could 

be required to apply new or revised guidance retrospectively, which may result in the revision of prior period financial 

statements by material amounts. The implementation of new or revised accounting guidance, such as the new impairment 

guidance issued in June 2016 that is described in “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies—New Accounting 

Guidance,” could have a material adverse effect on our financial results or net worth and result in or contribute to the need for 

additional draws from Treasury under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement.

Changes in interest rates or our loss of the ability to manage interest rate risk successfully could adversely affect our 

financial results and condition, 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” in our 2015 Form 10-K and in this 

report. 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.

We mark to market changes in the estimated fair value of our derivatives through our earnings on a quarterly basis, but we do 

not similarly mark to market changes in some of the financial instruments that generate our interest rate risk exposures. As a 

result, changes in interest rates, particularly significant changes, can have a significant adverse effect on our earnings and net 

worth for the quarter in which the changes occur, depending on the nature of the changes and the derivatives we hold at that 

time. We have experienced significant fair value losses in some periods due to changes in interest rates, and we expect to 

continue to experience volatility from period to period in our financial results as a result of fair value losses or gains on our 

derivatives.

Changes in interest rates also can affect our credit losses. When interest rates increase, our credit losses from loans with 

adjustable payment terms may increase as borrower payments increase at their reset dates, which increases the borrower’s 

risk of default, particularly for adjustable-rate loans with interest-only features. Rising interest rates may also reduce the 

opportunity for these borrowers to refinance into a fixed-rate loan. Similarly, many borrowers may have additional debt 

obligations, such as home equity lines of credit and second liens, that also have adjustable payment terms. If a borrower’s 

payment on his or her other debt obligations increases due to rising interest rates or a change in amortization, it increases the 

risk that the borrower may default on a loan we own or guarantee.

While we have not experienced negative interest rates in the United States, some central banks in Europe and Asia have cut 

interest rates below zero. If U.S. interest rates fell below zero, it could result in significant fair value losses on the derivatives 

we use to manage interest rate risk, reduce our net interest income and increase our operational risk.

Item 2. Unregistered Sales of Equity Securities and Use of Proceeds

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. During the quarter ended September 30, 2016, we did not sell any equity 

securities.
144

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 under the Securities Act of 1933, 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 website 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 website, the document will be posted on 

our website within the same time period that a prospectus for a non-exempt securities offering would be required to be filed 

with the SEC.

The website 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 website address solely for your information. Information appearing on our website is not incorporated 

into this report.

Our Purchases of Equity Securities

We did not repurchase any of our equity securities during the third quarter of 2016.

Dividend Restrictions 

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. In addition, FHFA’s 

regulations relating to conservatorship and receivership operations prohibit us from paying any dividends while in 

conservatorship unless authorized by the Director of FHFA. The Director of FHFA has directed us to make dividend 

payments on the senior preferred stock on a quarterly basis.

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 (other than the senior preferred stock) without the 

prior written consent of Treasury. In addition, in 2012 the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement and the 

senior preferred stock were amended to require that we pay Treasury each quarter any dividends declared consisting of the 

amount, if any, by which our net worth as of the end of the immediately preceding fiscal quarter exceeds an applicable capital 

reserve amount, which will decrease to zero in 2018. As a result, our net income is not available to common stockholders. For 

more information on the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement and senior preferred stock, see “Business—

Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements—Treasury Agreements—Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement and Related 

Issuance of Senior Preferred Stock and Common Stock Warrant” in our 2015 Form 10-K.

Additional 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. 

Statutory Restrictions. Under 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. 
145

Item 3. Defaults Upon Senior Securities

None. 

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

None.

Item 5. Other Information

None.

Item 6. Exhibits

An index to exhibits has been filed as part of this report beginning on page E-1 and is incorporated herein by reference.
146

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on 

its behalf by the undersigned thereunto duly authorized.

Federal National Mortgage Association

By: /s/ Timothy J. Mayopoulos

Timothy J. Mayopoulos

President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: November 3, 2016

By: /s/ David C. Benson

David C. Benson

Executive Vice President and

Chief Financial Officer

Date: November 3, 2016
E-1

INDEX TO EXHIBITS

Item Description

3.1 Fannie Mae Charter Act (12 U.S.C. § 1716 et seq.) as amended through July 21, 2010 (Incorporated by

reference to Exhibit 3.1 to Fannie Mae’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Commission file number

000-50231) for the quarter ended June 30, 2015, filed August 6, 2015.)

3.2 Fannie Mae Bylaws, as amended through July 21, 2016 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to Fannie

Mae’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Commission file number 000-50231) for the quarter ended June

30, 2016, filed August 4, 2016.)

31.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a)

31.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Securities Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a)

32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

32.2 Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350

101. INS XBRL Instance Document*

101. SCH XBRL Taxonomy Extension Schema*

101. CAL XBRL Taxonomy Extension Calculation*

101. DEF XBRL Taxonomy Extension Definition*

101. LAB XBRL Taxonomy Extension Label*

101. PRE XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation*

__________

* The financial information contained in these XBRL documents is unaudited. 
FR028