UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) 

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015 

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

(Address of principal executive offices)

20016 

(zip code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

(202) 752-7000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: 

Title of Each Class Name of Each Exchange on Which Registered

None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: 

Common Stock, without par value 

(Title of class) 

8.25% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series T, stated value $25 per share 

(Title of class) 

8.75% Non-Cumulative Mandatory Convertible Preferred Stock, Series 2008-1, stated value $50 per share 

(Title of class) 

Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series S, stated value $25 per share 

(Title of class) 

7.625% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series R, stated value $25 per share 

(Title of class) 

6.75% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series Q, stated value $25 per share 

(Title of class) 

Variable Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series P, stated value $25 per share 

(Title of class) 

Variable Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series O, stated value $50 per share 

(Title of class) 

5.375% Non-Cumulative Convertible Series 2004-1 Preferred Stock, stated value $100,000 per share 

(Title of class) 

5.50% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series N, stated value $50 per share 

(Title of class) 

4.75% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series M, stated value $50 per share 

(Title of class) 

5.125% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series L, stated value $50 per share 

(Title of class) 

5.375% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series I, stated value $50 per share 

(Title of class) 

5.81% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series H, stated value $50 per share 

(Title of class) 

Variable Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series G, stated value $50 per share 

(Title of class) 

Variable Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series F, stated value $50 per share 

(Title of class) 

5.10% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series E, stated value $50 per share 

(Title of class) 

5.25% Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series D, stated value $50 per share 

(Title of class) 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes No 

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes No 

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 if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s 

knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. 

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 

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant computed by reference to the last reported sale price of the common stock quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board on 

June 30, 2015 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter) was approximately $2.7 billion. 

As of January 31, 2016, there were 1,158,082,750 shares of common stock of the registrant outstanding.
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

PART I. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 1. Business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Residential Mortgage Market . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Mortgage Securitizations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Business Segments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Housing Finance Reform. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Our Customers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Competition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Employees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Where You Can Find Additional Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 2. Properties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 3. Legal Proceedings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

PART II. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of 

Equity Securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 6. Selected Financial Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations . . . . . . . . .

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Glossary of Terms Used in This Report . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure . . . . . . . . .

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 9B. Other Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PART III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Directors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Corporate Governance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Executive Officers. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 11. Executive Compensation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compensation Discussion and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

1

1

2

15

17

19

26

30

33

42

42

43

43

43

48

64

64

65

66

67

67

69

71

71

73

85

95

98

107

108

146

146

149

149

149

149

155

155

155

155

158

162

164

164
ii

Compensation Committee Report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compensation Risk Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Compensation Tables. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder 

Matters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Policies and Procedures Relating to Transactions with Related Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Transactions with Related Persons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Director Independence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

PART IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INDEX TO EXHIBITS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F-1

180

180

182

191

193

193

194

197

200

201

201

E-1
iii

TABLE REFERENCE

Table Description Page

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

2 Single-Family Acquisitions Statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3 Housing and Mortgage Market Indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4 Business Segment Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

5 Multifamily Housing Goals for 2012 to 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

6 2014 Housing Goals Performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

7 Summary of Consolidated Results of Operations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74

8 Analysis of Net Interest Income and Yield . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75

9 Rate/Volume Analysis of Changes in Net Interest Income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

10 Fair Value Gains (Losses), Net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

11 Total Loss Reserves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80

12 Changes in Combined Loss Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81

13 Troubled Debt Restructurings and Nonaccrual Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

14 Credit Loss Performance Metrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83

15 Credit Loss Concentration Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

16 Single-Family Business Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

17 Multifamily Business Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

18 Capital Markets Group Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

19 Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio Activity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

20 Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio Composition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94

21 Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

22 Summary of Consolidated Balance Sheets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96

23 Summary of Mortgage-Related Securities at Fair Value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

24 Activity in Debt of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100

25 Outstanding Short-Term Borrowings and Long-Term Debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

26 Outstanding Short-Term Borrowings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103

27 Contractual Obligations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

28 Cash and Other Investments Portfolio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

29 Fannie Mae Credit Ratings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

30 Composition of Mortgage Credit Book of Business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

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

Acquisition Period. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

32 Representation and Warranty Status of Single-Family Conventional Loans Acquired in 2013-2015 . . . . 115

33 Credit Risk Transferred Pursuant to CAS and CIRT Transactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

34 Risk Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Business Volume and Guaranty Book of Business. 119

35 Single-Family Adjustable-Rate Mortgage and Rate Reset Modifications by Year. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

36 Delinquency Status and Activity of Single-Family Conventional Loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124

37 Single-Family Conventional Seriously Delinquent Loan Concentration Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

38 Statistics on Single-Family Loan Workouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

39 Single-Family Troubled Debt Restructuring Activity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

40 Percentage of Single-Family Loan Modifications That Were Current or Paid Off at One and Two Years

Post-Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

41 Single-Family Foreclosed Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
iv

Table Description Page

42 Single-Family Acquired Property Concentration Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131

43 Multifamily Lender Risk-Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

44 Multifamily Guaranty Book of Business Key Risk Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132

45 Mortgage Insurance Coverage. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136

46 Interest Rate Sensitivity of Net Portfolio to Changes in Interest Rate Level and Slope of Yield Curve . . 144

47 Derivative Impact on Interest Rate Risk (50 Basis Points). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
1

PART I

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 “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements.”

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 “Business—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 forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors including, but not limited to, those discussed in “Risk Factors” 

and elsewhere in this report. 

You can find a “Glossary of Terms Used in This Report” in “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition 

and Results of Operations (‘MD&A’).” 

Item 1. Business

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 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 under “Conservatorship and Treasury 

Agreements” and “Risk Factors.” We discuss the uncertainty of our future in “Executive Summary—Outlook” and “Risk 

Factors.” We discuss proposals for housing finance reform that could materially affect our business in “Housing Finance 

Reform.”
2

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

Please read this Executive Summary together with our MD&A and our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 

2015 and related notes to the consolidated financial statements.

Overview

We reported net income of $11.0 billion in 2015, compared with net income of $14.2 billion in 2014. See “Summary of Our 

Financial Performance” below for an overview of our 2015 financial performance. 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—Financial Results” and “Outlook—Revenues” below. 

With our expected March 2016 dividend payment to Treasury, we will have paid a total of $147.6 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. See “Treasury Draws and Dividend Payments” and 

“Outlook—Dividend Obligations to Treasury” below for more information regarding our dividend payments to Treasury.

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 2015, approximately 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. 
3

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. Through 2015, we had transferred a significant portion of the mortgage 

credit risk on over $500 billion in unpaid principal balance of mortgage loans pursuant to these transactions. 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. See “Helping to Build a Sustainable Housing Finance System” below for a discussion of our credit risk transfer 

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. See “Helping to Build a Sustainable Housing Finance 

System” for a discussion of these efforts and FHFA’s strategic goals for our conservatorship.

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 2015. We 

were a leading source of liquidity in the single-family and multifamily markets in 2015. We also continued to help struggling 

homeowners. In 2015, we provided approximately 122,000 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 continued our initiatives to better serve our customers’ needs and improve our business efficiency in 2015. These 

initiatives include continuing to revise and clarify our representation and warranty framework, 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.

Summary of Our Financial Performance

Comprehensive Income

We recognized comprehensive income of $10.6 billion in 2015, consisting of net income of $11.0 billion, partially offset by 

other comprehensive loss of $326 million. In comparison, we recognized comprehensive income of $14.7 billion in 2014, 

consisting of net income of $14.2 billion and other comprehensive income of $530 million. The decrease in 2015 

comprehensive income was primarily driven by a shift from credit-related income in 2014 to credit-related expense in 2015 

and a decrease in fee and other income, partially offset by lower fair value losses.

We recognized credit-related expense of $834 million in 2015 compared with credit-related income of $3.8 billion in 2014. 

This shift was primarily driven by a lower benefit for credit losses and higher foreclosed property expense in 2015. The 

reduction in our benefit for credit losses in 2015 as compared with 2014 was primarily driven by decreases in mortgage 

interest rates in 2014, which decreased the impairment on our individually impaired loans related to concessions provided on 

our modified loans and resulted in an increase in our benefit for credit losses in 2014. Changes in interest rates were not a 

primary driver of our 2015 benefit for credit losses. In addition, although home prices increased in both 2014 and 2015, home 

price increases had a smaller impact on our benefit for credit losses in 2015 compared with 2014, primarily due to the smaller 

number of nonperforming loans held for investment in our guaranty book of business in 2015 as compared with 2014. Also 

contributing to our lower benefit for credit losses in 2015 was our redesignation of certain nonperforming single-family loans 

from held for investment (“HFI”) to held for sale (“HFS”) in connection with our plans to sell these loans.

We recognized fee and other income of $1.3 billion in 2015 and $5.9 billion in 2014. Our fee and other income was lower in 

2015 compared with 2014 primarily due to higher revenue recognized in 2014 as a result of settlement agreements resolving 

certain lawsuits relating to private-label mortgage-related securities (“PLS”) sold to us. 

Fair value losses of $1.8 billion in 2015 and $4.8 billion in 2014 were primarily driven by a decline in longer-term swap rates 

in 2015 and 2014.

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 
4

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 our outstanding debt of Fannie Mae. Some of these financial instruments in our net portfolio are 

not recorded at fair value in our 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 “MD&A—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 

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

and fluctuations in mortgage interest rates.

See “MD&A—Consolidated Results of Operations” for more information on our results.

Net Worth

Our net worth increased to $4.1 billion as of December 31, 2015 from $3.7 billion as of December 31, 2014 primarily due to 

our comprehensive income of $10.6 billion during 2015, partially offset by our payments to Treasury of $10.3 billion in 

senior preferred stock dividends. 

The dividend amount payable to Treasury on the senior preferred stock for each dividend period from January 1, 2013 

through and including December 31, 2017 is 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. The capital reserve amount was $1.8 billion for 

dividend periods in 2015 and further decreased to $1.2 billion for dividend periods in 2016. Our expected dividend payment 

of $2.9 billion for the first quarter of 2016 is calculated based on our net worth of $4.1 billion as of December 31, 2015 less 

the applicable capital reserve amount of $1.2 billion.

Single-Family Guaranty Book of Business

Credit Performance 

In 2015, we continued to acquire loans with strong credit profiles and to execute on our strategies for reducing credit losses, 

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.
5

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

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

As of the end of each period:

Serious delinquency rate(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.55 % 1.89 % 2.38 %

Seriously delinquent loan count . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267,174 329,590 418,837

Foreclosed property inventory:

Number of properties(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,253 87,063 103,229

Carrying value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,608 $ 9,745 $ 10,334

Combined loss reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28,325 $ 36,383 $ 44,705

During the period:

Credit-related income (expense)(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (1,035) $ 3,625 $ 11,205

Credit losses(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10,731 $ 5,978 $ 4,452

REO net sales prices to unpaid principal balance(6)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 % 69 % 67 %

Short sales net sales price to unpaid principal balance(7)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73 % 72 % 67 %

Loan workout activity (number of loans):

Home retention loan workouts(8). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100,208 130,132 172,029

Short sales and deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,077 34,480 61,949

Total loan workouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122,285 164,612 233,978

Loan workouts as a percentage of delinquent loans in our guaranty book of business(9). 19.95 % 23.20 % 29.20 %

__________

(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 and loans that have been referred 

to foreclosure but not yet foreclosed upon, 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 consolidated 

balance sheets as a component of “Other assets.”

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

(5) Consists of (a) charge offs, net of recoveries and (b) foreclosed property expense (income), adjusted to exclude the impact of fair value 

losses resulting from credit impaired loans acquired from MBS trusts. As discussed in “Consolidated Results of Operations—CreditRelated Income (Expense)—Credit Loss Performance Metrics,” our credit losses in 2015 included charge-offs of (1) $1.8 billion in 

loans held for investment and $724 million in preforeclosure property taxes and insurance receivable that we recognized on January 1, 

2015 upon 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 (2) $1.1 billion in accrued interest 

receivable that we recognized on January 1, 2015 upon our adoption of a change in accounting policy related to loans placed on 

nonaccrual status. See “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” for additional information.

(6) Calculated as the amount of sale proceeds received on disposition of REO properties during the respective periods, 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 38: Statistics on Single-Family Loan Workouts” in 

“MD&A—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 problem loan workouts during the period as a percentage of the average balance of delinquent loans in our singlefamily guaranty book of business. 
6

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 “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage 

Credit Risk Management,” including “Table 34: 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 1.55% as of 

December 31, 2015, compared with 1.89% as of December 31, 2014. 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 10% of our single-family book of 

business as of December 31, 2015, but constituted 57% of our seriously delinquent single-family loans as of December 31, 

2015 and drove 78% of our 2015 single-family credit losses. For information on the credit performance of our single-family 

book of business based on loan vintage, see “Table 15: Credit Loss Concentration Analysis” in “MD&A—Consolidated 

Results of Operations—Credit-Related Income (Expense)—Credit Loss Performance Metrics” and “Table 37: Single-Family 

Conventional Seriously Delinquent Loan Concentration Analysis” in “MD&A—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 31: Selected Credit 

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

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

We provide additional information on our credit-related expense or income and credit losses in “MD&A—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 “MD&A—Risk 

Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management.” See also “Risk Factors,” 

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.

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 five years, 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

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family average charged guaranty fee on new 

acquisitions, net of TCCA fee (in basis points)(1)

. . 50.5 52.9 47.4 32.4 28.8

Single-family Fannie Mae MBS issuances . . . . . . . . . $472,471 $375,676 $733,111 $827,749 $564,606

Select risk characteristics of single-family 

conventional acquisitions:(2)

Weighted average FICO® credit score at origination 748 744 753 761 762

FICO credit score at origination less than 660 . . . . . 6 % 7 % 5 % 3 % 2 %

Weighted average original LTV ratio(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . 75 % 77 % 76 % 75 % 69 %

Original LTV ratio over 80%(3)(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 % 32 % 29 % 25 % 18 %

Original LTV ratio over 95%(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 % 4 % 10 % 11 % 4 %

Loan purpose:

Purchase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 % 52 % 30 % 21 % 24 %

Refinance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 % 48 % 70 % 79 % 76 %

__________

(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”), the incremental revenue from which is remitted to Treasury and not retained by us. Average 
7

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%.

As shown in Table 2, our single-family average charged guaranty fee on new acquisitions excluding TCCA fees has increased 

significantly since 2012. The primary driver of our higher single-family average charged guaranty fees on new acquisitions in 

2013, 2014 and 2015, as compared with 2011 and 2012, was guaranty fee increases we implemented in 2012. The singlefamily average charged guaranty fee on new acquisitions shown in Table 2 excludes the impact of a 10 basis point fee 

increase we 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. 

Other factors that impact our average charged guaranty fee on newly-acquired single-family loans are our loan level price 

adjustments and changes we make to our contractual fee rates. Loan level price adjustments refer to one-time cash fees that 

we charge at the time we acquire a loan based on its credit characteristics. Loans with higher LTV ratios or lower FICO credit 

scores generally result in higher loan level price adjustments than loans with lower LTV ratios or higher FICO credit scores. 

Accordingly, our average charged guaranty fee on new acquisitions varies from period to period based in part on changes in 

the types of loans we acquire during the periods. For example, our average charged guaranty fee on newly-acquired singlefamily loans would typically be lower during a period in which we purchased a high volume of non-HARP refinance loans 

than during a period in which we purchased a high volume of home purchase loans, as non-HARP refinance loans typically 

have lower LTV ratios than home purchase loans. The contractual fee rates we charge vary to the extent we make changes in 

our pricing strategy in response to the market and competitive environment. The decrease in our average charged guaranty 

fee on newly-acquired single-family loans in 2015 as compared with 2014 was driven by a decrease in loan level price 

adjustments charged on our acquisitions in 2015 and by changes we made in our contractual fee rates.

The single-family loans we acquired in 2015 continued to have a strong credit profile, with a weighted average original LTV

ratio of 75% and a weighted average FICO credit score of 748. For more information on the credit risk profile of our singlefamily conventional loan acquisitions in 2015, 2014 and 2013, see “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management

—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management,” including “Table 34: 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 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.

Beginning in September 2015, we implemented guaranty fee changes pursuant to a directive from FHFA. These fee changes 

included elimination of the 25 basis point adverse market delivery charge that had been assessed on all single-family 

mortgages purchased by us since 2008 and small, targeted increases in loan level price adjustments for loans with certain risk 

attributes. We do not expect these guaranty fee changes to result in material changes to our single-family guaranty fee 

revenue or loan volume.
8

Providing Access to Credit Opportunities for Creditworthy Borrowers

Pursuant to FHFA’s conservatorship scorecards and our statutory mission, we are continuing to work 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 this effort, in 2014 we worked with FHFA to revise our eligibility criteria to address a 

specific segment of creditworthy borrowers—those who can afford a mortgage but who lack resources for a substantial down 

payment—in a responsible manner by taking into account factors that would compensate for the high LTV ratios of their 

loans. Specifically, we changed our eligibility requirements to increase our maximum LTV ratio from 95% to 97% for loans 

meeting certain criteria. In addition, in August 2015 we announced an improved affordable lending product, HomeReadyTM, 

which is designed for creditworthy borrowers with lower and moderate incomes and provides expanded eligibility for 

financing homes in designated low-income, minority and disaster-impacted communities. Under our HomeReady guidelines, 

evidence of income from a non-borrower household member can be considered as a factor to allow a borrower to qualify with 

a higher debt-to-income ratio for the loan, helping multi-generational and extended households obtain homeownership. 

HomeReady also permits rental income, such as from a basement apartment, to augment the borrower’s qualifying income. 

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

Our eligibility requirements for loans acquired under our revised eligibility criteria and under HomeReady include 

compensating factors and risk mitigants, which reduce the incidence of loans with multiple higher-risk characteristics. Loans 

acquired under our revised eligibility criteria and under HomeReady with LTV ratios greater than 95% must be fixed-rate 

loans and must be underwritten through Desktop Underwriter®, our proprietary automated underwriting system. Desktop 

Underwriter provides a comprehensive credit risk assessment on loan applications submitted through the system, assessing 

risks and compensating factors, and identifying loan applications that do not meet our eligibility requirements. HomeReady 

borrowers are required to complete an online education course preparing them for the home buying process and providing 

post-purchase support for sustainable homeownership. In addition, we require mortgage insurance or other appropriate credit 

enhancement for all acquisitions of non-HARP single-family conventional loans with LTV ratios greater than 80%. 

In 2015, pursuant to our revised eligibility criteria and HomeReady, we acquired approximately 24,000 single-family loans 

with 95.01% to 97% LTV ratios from approximately 700 lenders. These loans represented 1% of the single-family loans we 

acquired in 2015. While we expect the volume of loans we acquire with 95.01% to 97% LTV ratios under these criteria and 

HomeReady to increase, we expect they will continue to constitute only a small portion of our acquisitions. 

Although a higher LTV ratio may indicate that a loan presents a higher credit risk than a loan with a lower LTV ratio, we 

expect our acquisition of these loans under our revised eligibility criteria and under HomeReady will not materially affect our 

overall credit risk because we expect that (1) the eligibility requirements these loans must meet will limit their effect on our 

credit risk and (2) these loans will constitute a small portion of our acquisitions. In addition, we have experience managing 

the credit risk associated with loans with LTV ratios in this range. 

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 single-family 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 2015, we continued to provide critical liquidity and support to the U.S. mortgage market in a number of 

important ways:

• 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 $516 billion in liquidity to the mortgage market 

in 2015 through our purchases of loans and guarantees of loans and securities. This liquidity enabled borrowers to 

complete approximately 1,188,000 mortgage refinancings and approximately 954,000 home purchases, and provided 

financing for approximately 569,000 units of multifamily housing. 
9

• 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 122,000 loan workouts in 2015 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 Plus 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 198,000 Refi Plus loans in 2015. Refinancings delivered 

to us through Refi Plus in the fourth quarter of 2015 reduced borrowers’ monthly mortgage payments by an average 

of $191. 

• We support affordability in the multifamily rental market. Over 90% of the multifamily units we financed in 2015 

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 “Business Segments—Capital Markets.”

2015 Market Share 

We estimate that our single-family market share was 28% in both 2015 and 2014. These amounts represent our single-family 

mortgage acquisitions for each year, excluding delinquent loans we purchased from our MBS trusts, as a percentage of the 

single-family first-lien mortgages we currently estimate were originated in the United States that year. Our estimate of 

mortgage originations in prior periods is subject to change as additional data become available; therefore, these market share 

estimates may change in the future, perhaps materially. 

We were one of the largest issuers of mortgage-related securities in the secondary market in 2015, with an estimated market 

share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances of 37%, compared with 40% for 2014. We estimate our 

market share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances was 36% in both the third quarter and fourth quarter 

of 2015, compared with 40% in the fourth quarter of 2014. Our market share for new single-family mortgage-related 

securities issuances decreased in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily as a result of competition from Ginnie Mae.

We remained a continuous source of liquidity in the multifamily market in 2015. We owned or guaranteed approximately 

19% of the outstanding debt on multifamily properties as of September 30, 2015 (the latest date for which information is 

available). 

Serving Customer Needs and Improving Our Business Efficiency 

We are undertaking 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 our representation 

and warranty framework, 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.

We have taken several actions in recent years to improve our representation and warranty framework and help lenders reduce 

their repurchase risk relating to loans they deliver to us, including:

• Revising our representation and warranty framework in 2013 to limit our ability to require lenders to repurchase 

loans for breaches of certain selling representations and warranties, effective for loans delivered on or after January 

1, 2013 that have had 36 timely payments (or 12 timely payments for Refi Plus loans) and meet other eligibility 

requirements. We further revised our representation and warranty framework in 2014 to relax the timely payment 

requirement effective for conventional loans delivered on or after July 1, 2014 to permit two instances of 30-day 

delinquency, and to allow loans to qualify for relief after satisfactory conclusion of a quality control review. 

• Providing lenders with greater clarity on the circumstances that would result in a loan repurchase request. For 

example, in November 2014, we issued a lender announcement updating and clarifying aspects of our new 

representation and warranty framework, particularly relating to the “life of loan” representations and warranties that 

are not eligible for repurchase relief. 

• Expediting our review of newly acquired performing loans to identify loan defects earlier.
10

• Offering lenders new or enhanced innovative tools to help them ensure the quality of the loans they deliver to us, 

such as our EarlyCheckTM loan verification tool, which enables early validation of loan delivery eligibility, allowing 

lenders to make corrections and avoid the delivery of ineligible loans. 

• Providing lenders with training and feedback to help them resolve origination issues and reduce loan origination 

defects. 

• Offering lenders alternatives to repurchasing loans in the event of underwriting defects, including the right to correct 

loan defects and to propose alternative remedies for our consideration. We also provided lenders specific guidance in 

October 2015 on what types of loan defects could lead to a repurchase request or an alternative remedy.

• Announcing in February 2016 a new independent dispute resolution process to resolve disagreements over 

repurchase requests in a timely fashion when needed. This independent dispute resolution process will be available 

for loans delivered on and after January 1, 2016.

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 December 31, 2015, more than one 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. See “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk 

Management” for further discussion of changes to our representation and warranty framework and actions we have taken to 

reduce and clarify lenders’ repurchase risk.

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

efficiency and lower costs, including the following:

• In January 2015, we made Collateral Underwriter® available to lenders at no cost, giving them access to the same 

appraisal review tool we use so that they can address potential appraisal issues prior to delivering a loan to us.

• In April 2015, we integrated Collateral Underwriter with our Desktop Underwriter underwriting system, which we 

believe will enhance our lenders’ risk management and underwriting capabilities.

• In June 2015, we eliminated fees charged to customers for using Desktop Underwriter and Desktop Originator®, 

which we expect will allow more lenders to access these systems in their underwriting process.

• In October 2015, we enhanced our EarlyCheck loan verification tool with additional loan-level data integrity 

capabilities, to give lenders confidence that the loans they deliver to us have accurate, complete data and meet our 

requirements. 

• In November 2015, we introduced Fannie Mae ConnectTM, a new self-service portal for lenders to access the data 

and analytics they need through a one stop source that replaced multiple legacy systems.

• In December 2015, we launched a new loan delivery platform for lenders that is designed to help lenders deliver 

loans more efficiently and with greater transparency and certainty.

We continue to focus on improving our business to provide value to customers. For example, we expect to implement 

additional enhancements to Desktop Underwriter in 2016 to further help our lender customers originate mortgages with 

increased efficiency and lower costs and to help increase access to credit for creditworthy borrowers, such as incorporating 

trended credit data and offering third-party validation of specified borrower data.

We are also working on 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 GSE security, which we describe below under “Helping 

to Build a Sustainable Housing Finance System.” 
11

Helping to Build a Sustainable Housing Finance System 

We continue to invest significant resources towards helping to build a safer and sustainable housing finance system, primarily 

through pursuing the strategic goals identified by our conservator. FHFA’s current strategic goals for our conservatorship are 

to:

• Maintain, in a safe and sound manner, credit availability and foreclosure prevention activities for new and 

refinanced mortgages to foster liquid, efficient, competitive and resilient national housing finance markets.

• Reduce taxpayer risk through increasing the role of private capital in the mortgage market.

• Build a new single-family infrastructure for use by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and adaptable for use by other 

participants in the secondary market in the future.

Since 2012, FHFA has released annual corporate performance objectives for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, referred to as the 

conservatorship scorecard, which detail specific priorities for implementing FHFA’s strategic goals. FHFA released its 2015 

conservatorship scorecard in January 2015, and its 2016 conservatorship scorecard in December 2015. Both FHFA’s 2015 

and 2016 conservatorship scorecards include objectives designed to further the goal of reforming the housing finance system. 

We describe below some of the actions we are taking pursuant to the mandates of the scorecards in order to build the policies 

and infrastructure for a sustainable housing finance system.

Credit Risk Transfer Transactions. FHFA’s 2015 and 2016 conservatorship scorecards include objectives relating to credit 

risk transfer transactions. 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. Our primary method of achieving our 

scorecard objectives relating to credit risk transfer transactions has been through the issuance of our Connecticut Avenue 

SecuritiesTM (“CAS”) and our Credit Insurance Risk TransferTM (“CIRT

TM”) transactions. These transactions transfer a 

portion of the mortgage credit risk associated with losses on specified reference pools of single-family mortgage loans to 

investors in CAS in the case of CAS transactions or to panels of reinsurers or insurers in the case of CIRT transactions. As of 

December 31, 2015, we had completed a total of nine CAS transactions since the CAS program began in 2013 and seven

CIRT transactions since the CIRT program began in 2014. Approximately 15% of the loans in our single-family conventional 

guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015, 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, including structures that transfer first loss risk. In the aggregate, our credit risk transfer transactions 

completed through year-end 2015 transferred a significant portion of the mortgage credit risk on single-family mortgages 

with an unpaid principal balance of over $500 billion. 

We have transferred a significant portion of the mortgage credit risk on over 95% of the single-family loans we acquired 

during the twelve months ended November 2014 that were in our targeted loan categories for our 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%. Based on their characteristics at the time we acquired them, over 50% of the single-family loans we 

acquired during the twelve months ended November 2014 were included in loan categories we have targeted for credit risk 

transfer transactions. 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.

We intend to continue to engage in regular CAS and CIRT transactions on an ongoing basis, subject to market conditions. See 

“MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management—Transfer of 

Mortgage Credit Risk—Credit Risk-Sharing Transactions” for more information on these transactions. 

Common Securitization Platform. FHFA’s 2015 and 2016 conservatorship scorecards include objectives relating to the 

development of a common securitization platform that is intended to replace certain elements of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie 

Mac’s respective proprietary systems for securitizing mortgages and performing associated back office and administrative 

functions. In October 2013, at the direction of our conservator, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac established Common 

Securitization Solutions, LLC (“CSS”), a jointly owned limited liability company formed to design, develop, build and 

ultimately operate the platform. We continue to work with FHFA, Freddie Mac and CSS on building and testing the common 

securitization platform, as well as on implementing required changes to our systems and operations to integrate with the 

common securitization platform. In September 2015, FHFA issued “An Update on the Common Securitization Platform,” 

which provided details on the progress made in developing the platform. FHFA’s 2016 conservatorship scorecard states that 

FHFA expects both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to implement the single security on the common securitization platform in 

2018. See “Housing Finance Reform—Conservator Developments” for more information on the progress of the common 

securitization platform initiative.
12

Single Security. FHFA’s 2015 and 2016 conservatorship scorecards include objectives relating to the development of a single 

mortgage-backed security for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In May 2015, FHFA published its initial determinations 

regarding the key features of the single security structure. During 2015, we, FHFA and Freddie Mac developed a plan to 

implement the single security. We also worked on a variety of issues relating to the implementation of the single security, 

including accounting matters, communication planning, industry outreach, risk assessments, privacy matters, legal and 

contractual issues, and disclosures. See “Housing Finance Reform—Conservator Developments” for more information on the 

single security and “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks to our business associated with a single security for Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac.

Nonperforming Loan Sales. FHFA’s 2015 and 2016 conservatorship scorecards include objectives relating to reducing the 

number of our severely aged delinquent loans, including through nonperforming loan sales. In March 2015, FHFA announced 

enhanced requirements for nonperforming loan sales by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In the announcement, the Director of 

FHFA indicated FHFA’s expectation that, with these enhanced requirements, nonperforming loan sales will result in more 

favorable outcomes for borrowers and local communities. We completed three nonperforming loan sales in 2015, selling 

more than 10,000 nonperforming loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of $2.1 billion. Our second nonperforming 

loan sale transaction included a community impact pool of nonperforming loans with an unpaid principal balance of 

approximately $5 million that was specifically structured to attract diverse participation by non-profits, small investors and 

minority- and women-owned businesses. We plan to complete additional nonperforming loan sales.

Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative. We are working with FHFA, Freddie Mac and the National Community Stabilization 

Trust on a neighborhood stabilization initiative that is focused on disposing of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac REO properties 

in specified communities across the country where the number of REO properties remains elevated. This initiative began in 

two communities and was expanded to eighteen metropolitan areas in December 2015. In these areas, community 

organizations are given the opportunity to purchase foreclosed properties owned by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac prior to the 

properties being made publicly available for purchase.

Mortgage Insurance. FHFA’s 2015 conservatorship scorecard includes an objective that we implement final private mortgage 

insurer eligibility requirements for our counterparties. These reforms are intended to strengthen our mortgage insurer 

counterparties and reduce the risk to taxpayers of future defaults by mortgage insurers on their obligations to the GSEs. In 

April 2015, we published updated eligibility standards for approved private mortgage insurers, which were further revised in 

June 2015 and December 2015. The new standards include enhanced financial requirements and are designed to ensure that 

mortgage insurers have sufficient liquid assets to pay all claims under a hypothetical future stress scenario. The new 

standards also set forth enhanced operational performance expectations and define remedial actions that may be imposed 

should an approved mortgage insurer fail to comply with the revised requirements. See “MD&A—Risk Management—

Credit Risk Management—Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk Management—Credit Guarantors—Mortgage Insurers” for 

additional information on these new standards.

Eligibility Requirements for Seller-Servicers. FHFA’s 2015 conservatorship scorecard includes an objective that we enhance 

servicer eligibility standards for our counterparties. In May 2015, we and Freddie Mac issued new operational and financial 

eligibility requirements for our single-family mortgage seller-servicer counterparties. The operational requirements became 

effective September 1, 2015 and the financial requirements became effective December 31, 2015. These updated eligibility 

requirements are designed to better address the risks associated with emerging servicer business models and include a new 

minimum liquidity requirement for non-depository servicers. See “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—

Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk Management—Mortgage Sellers and Servicers” for a description of these new 

eligibility requirements.

Mortgage Data Standardization Initiatives. FHFA’s 2015 and 2016 conservatorship scorecards include objectives relating to 

support of mortgage data standardization initiatives. These initiatives are designed to improve the accuracy and quality of 

loan data through the mortgage lifecycle with the development and implementation of uniform data standards for singlefamily mortgages.

For more information on FHFA’s 2015 conservatorship scorecard objectives and our performance against these objectives, 

see “Executive Compensation—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Determination of 2015 Compensation—

Assessment of Corporate Performance on 2015 Conservatorship Scorecard.” For more information on FHFA’s 2016 

conservatorship scorecard objectives, see “Housing Finance Reform—Conservator Developments” and our Current Report 

on Form 8-K filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) on December 17, 2015.

Treasury Draws and Dividend Payments

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 
13

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

Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008 (the “2008 Reform 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. As of the date of this filing, the maximum amount of remaining 

funding under the agreement is $117.6 billion.

From 2008 through 2015, we paid a total of $144.8 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 directs 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 $2.9 billion by March 31, 2016 for the first quarter of 2016.

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 

“Housing Finance Reform” 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” for 

a discussion of the risks to our business relating to the uncertain future of our company.

Financial Results. Our financial results continued to be strong in 2015, with net income of $11.0 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 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 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.

Under the terms of the senior preferred stock, our capital reserve will decline by $600 million each year until it reaches zero 

in 2018. Although we expect to remain profitable on an annual basis for the foreseeable future, due to our declining capital 

reserve 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 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” for a discussion of the risks 

associated with our declining capital reserves.

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. Approximately two-thirds of our 2015 net interest income was derived from the loans underlying our 

Fannie Mae MBS in consolidated trusts. The net interest income generated by loans underlying our Fannie Mae MBS in 

consolidated trusts primarily consists of guaranty fees. We expect that guaranty fees will continue to account for an 

increasing portion of our net interest income.
14

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.

Dividend Obligations to Treasury. 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 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.

As described in “Legal Proceedings” and “Note 18, Commitments and Contingencies,” several lawsuits have been filed by 

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

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. According to the Mortgage Bankers Association, 80% of 

single-family seriously delinquent loans as of September 30, 2015 were originated prior to 2009. 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 decrease from 2015 levels by 

approximately 11% from an estimated $1.69 trillion in 2015 to $1.51 trillion in 2016, and that the amount of originations in 

the U.S. single-family mortgage market that are refinancings will decrease from an estimated $795 billion in 2015 to $558 

billion in 2016.

Home Prices. Based on our home price index, we estimate that home prices on a national basis increased by 5.1% in 2015. 

We expect the rate of home price appreciation in 2016 to be similar to 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 $10.7 billion in 2015, up from $5.9 billion in 2014. Our credit losses increased in 2015 

compared with 2014 primarily due to our approach to adopting the charge-off provisions 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”) on January 1, 2015, a change in our accounting policy for nonaccrual loans, the 

recognition of losses associated with the redesignation of certain nonperforming single-family loans from HFI to HFS and an 

increase in operating expenses on our single-family foreclosed properties. Our credit losses for 2015 reflect $2.5 billion in 

initial charge-offs associated with our approach to adopting the charge-off provisions of the Advisory Bulletin and $1.1 

billion in charge-offs relating to the change in accounting policy for nonaccrual loans. We expect our credit losses to be lower 

in 2016 and future years than our 2015 credit losses, absent further significant redesignations or accounting policy changes. 

For further information about our implementation of the Advisory Bulletin and our change in accounting policy for 

nonaccrual loans, see “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.” For further information about our 2015 credit 

losses as compared with our 2014 credit losses, see “MD&A—Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related Income 

(Expense)—Credit Loss Performance Metrics.”
15

Loss Reserves. Our combined loss reserves were $28.6 billion as of December 31, 2015, down from $36.8 billion as of 

December 31, 2014. 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 2015, see “MD&A—Consolidated Results of 

Operations—Credit-Related Income (Expense)” and “MD&A—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 level and credit characteristics of, and the credit risk posed by, 

our future acquisitions, 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 and future home prices. 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, 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 

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, a 

requirement that we implement a principal forgiveness program or implementation of a single GSE security; 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 mortgagebacked 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. 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.

RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE MARKET

The U.S. Residential Mortgage Market

We conduct business in the U.S. residential mortgage market and the global securities market. According to the Federal 

Reserve, total U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding, which includes $10.0 trillion of single-family mortgage debt 

outstanding, was estimated to be approximately $11.0 trillion as of September 30, 2015 (the latest date for which information 

is available). We owned or guaranteed mortgage assets representing approximately 28% of total U.S. residential mortgage 

debt outstanding as of September 30, 2015.

We operate our business solely in the United States and its territories, and accordingly, we generate no revenue from and have 

no long-lived assets, other than financial instruments, in geographic locations other than the United States and its territories.

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 2.4% in both 2015 and 2014. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics as of January 2016, the economy 

created an estimated 2.8 million non-farm jobs in 2015 and 3.0 million non-farm jobs in 2014. The unemployment rate 

declined to 5.0% in December 2015 from 5.6% in December 2014. In January 2016, non-farm payrolls increased by 151,000

jobs, and the unemployment rate decreased to 4.9%. 
16

The most comprehensive measure of the unemployment rate, which includes those working part-time who would rather work 

full-time and those not looking for work but who want to work and are available for work, declined to 9.9% in December 

2015 from 11.2% in December 2014.

Housing activity improved in 2015 as compared with 2014. Total existing home sales of 5.3 million units in 2015 represent 

an increase of 6.5% from 2014, compared with a 2.9% decrease in 2014, according to data from the National Association of 

REALTORS®. Sales of foreclosed homes and preforeclosure, or “short,” sales (together, “distressed sales”) accounted for 8%

of existing home sales in December 2015, compared with 11% in December 2014. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, new 

single-family home sales increased 14.5% in 2015, after increasing by 1.9% in 2014. Homebuilding activity continued to 

increase in 2015, as single-family housing starts rose approximately 10% in 2015, compared with an increase of 5% in 2014. 

Multifamily starts rose approximately 11% in 2015, compared with an increase of 16% in 2014.

At the end of 2015, the number of months’ supply, or the inventory/sales ratio, of available existing homes and of new homes 

were each below their historical average. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the months’ supply of new single-family 

unsold homes was 5.2 months as of December 31, 2015, compared with 5.1 months as of December 31, 2014. According to 

the National Association of REALTORS®, the months’ supply of existing unsold homes was 3.9 months as of December 31, 

2015, compared with a 4.4 months’ supply as of December 31, 2014. 

The overall mortgage market serious delinquency rate fell to 3.4% as of December 31, 2015, according to the Mortgage 

Bankers Association’s National Delinquency Survey, its lowest level since the third quarter of 2007, compared with 4.5% as 

of December 31, 2014. We provide information about Fannie Mae’s serious delinquency rate, which also decreased during 

2015, in “Executive Summary—Single-Family Guaranty Book of Business—Credit Performance.”

Despite recent improvement in the housing market and declining delinquency rates, approximately one out of fifteen

borrowers was delinquent or in foreclosure during the fourth quarter of 2015, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association 

National Delinquency Survey. 

Table 3 displays several key indicators related to the total U.S. residential mortgage market.

Table 3: Housing and Mortgage Market Indicators(1)

% Change

2015 2014 2013

2015 vs.

2014

2014 vs.

2013

Home sales (units in thousands) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,761 5,377 5,519 7.1 % (2.6)%

New home sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501 437 429 14.6 1.9

Existing home sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,260 4,940 5,090 6.5 (2.9)

Home price change based on Fannie Mae Home Price Index 

(“HPI”)(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 % 4.4 % 7.9 %

Annual average fixed-rate mortgage interest rate(3). . . . . . . . . . 3.9 % 4.2 % 4.0 %

Single-family mortgage originations (in billions). . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,690 $ 1,301 $ 1,866 29.9 (30.3)

Type of single-family mortgage origination:

Refinance share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 % 40 % 60 %

Adjustable-rate mortgage share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 % 9 % 7 %

Total U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding (in billions)(4)

. $11,011 $10,874 $10,802 1.3 0.7

__________

(1) The sources of the housing and mortgage market data in this table are the Federal Reserve Board, the U.S. Census Bureau, the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, the National Association of REALTORS® and the Mortgage Bankers Association. 

Home sales data are based on information available through December 2015. Single-family mortgage originations, as well as refinance 

shares, are based on February 2016 estimates from Fannie Mae’s Economic & Strategic Research group. The adjustable-rate mortgage 

share is based on the number of conventional mortgage applications data reported by the Mortgage Bankers Association. Certain 

previously reported data may have been changed to reflect revised historical data from any or all of these organizations.

(2) Calculated internally using property data information on loans purchased by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other third-party home sales 

data. Fannie Mae’s HPI is a weighted repeat transactions index, measuring average price changes in repeat sales on the same properties. 

Fannie Mae’s HPI excludes prices on properties sold in foreclosure. The reported home price change reflects the percentage change in 

Fannie Mae’s HPI from the fourth quarter of the prior year to the fourth quarter of the reported year.

(3) Based on the annual average 30-year fixed-rate mortgage interest rate reported by Freddie Mac.
17

(4) U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding information for 2015 is provided as of September 30, 2015, the latest date for which 

information is available.

Based on our home price index, we estimate that home prices on a national basis increased by 5.1% in 2015, following 

increases of 4.4% in 2014 and 7.9% in 2013. Despite the recent increases in home prices, we estimate that, through 

December 31, 2015, home prices on a national basis remained 6.0% 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. 

Despite the recent increases in home prices, many homeowners continue to have “negative equity” in their homes as a result 

of declines in home prices since 2006, which means their mortgage principal balance exceeds the current market value of 

their home. This increases the likelihood that borrowers will abandon their mortgage obligations and that the loans will 

become delinquent and proceed to foreclosure. According to CoreLogic, Inc., the number of residential properties with 

mortgages in a negative equity position in the third quarter of 2015 was approximately 4.1 million, down from 5.2 million in 

the third quarter of 2014. The percentage of properties with mortgages in a negative equity position in the third quarter of 

2015 was 8.1%, down from 10.4% in the third quarter of 2014.

Thirty-year fixed-rate mortgage rates primarily increased during the year, starting at 3.73% for the week of January 8, 2015 

and ending at 4.01% for the week of December 31, 2015, according to the Freddie Mac Primary Mortgage Market Survey®. 

Although mortgage rates trended up in 2015, the average mortgage rate in 2015 was lower than in 2014, which contributed to 

an increase in single-family mortgage originations in 2015. We estimate that total single-family mortgage originations 

increased by approximately 30% to $1.69 trillion in 2015, compared with $1.30 trillion in 2014, and that the amount of 

single-family mortgage originations that were refinancings increased by approximately 53% to $795 billion in 2015, 

compared with $518 billion in 2014. 

We estimate that the amount of single-family mortgage debt outstanding rose slightly in 2015. As of September 30, 2015 (the 

latest date for which information is available), total single-family mortgage debt outstanding was $10.0 trillion, an increase of 

0.9% from the amount of total single-family mortgage debt outstanding as of September 30, 2014. Total U.S. residential 

mortgage debt outstanding increased by 1.7% from the third quarter of 2014 to the third quarter of 2015.

National multifamily market fundamentals, which include factors such as vacancy rates and rents, remained relatively stable 

during 2015, despite an increase in new apartment supply. Although the national estimated vacancy level increased toward 

the end of the year, it remained near historic lows, benefiting from steady rental demand coupled with ongoing job growth 

and new household formation. Rent growth slowed during the fourth quarter of 2015, but remained positive. According to 

preliminary third-party data, the national multifamily vacancy rate for institutional investment-type apartment properties was 

an estimated 5.0% as of December 31, 2015, up from an estimated 4.75% as of September 30, 2015 and the same as the 

estimated 5.0% as of December 31, 2014.

Effective rents continued to increase during 2015, although the rate of growth slowed in the fourth quarter of 2015. National 

asking rents increased by an estimated 3.0% in 2015 but only by an estimated 0.25% during the fourth quarter of 2015, 

compared with an estimated increase of 1.25% in the third quarter of 2015.

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 165,000 units in 2015, according to 

preliminary data from Reis, Inc. There was positive net absorption of approximately 34,000 units during the fourth quarter of 

2015, compared with approximately 37,000 units during the third quarter of 2015. Although an estimated 276,000

multifamily units were added to the nation’s inventory in 2015, demand remained steady.

Vacancy rates and rents are important to loan performance because multifamily loans are generally repaid from the cash 

flows generated by the underlying property. Several years of improvement in these fundamentals helped to increase property 

values in most metropolitan areas in 2015, and contributed to the ongoing increase in new multifamily construction 

development. As a result, it is estimated that there will be approximately 384,000 new multifamily units completed in 2016. 

The bulk of this new supply is concentrated in a limited number of metropolitan areas. We believe this increase in supply will 

result in a temporary slowdown in net absorption rates, occupancy levels and effective rents in those areas throughout 2016. 

Nevertheless, we expect the overall national rental market supply and demand to remain in balance over the longer term, 

based on expected construction completions, expected obsolescence and positive rental household formation trends.

MORTGAGE SECURITIZATIONS

We support market liquidity by issuing Fannie Mae MBS that are readily traded in the capital markets. We create Fannie Mae 

MBS by placing mortgage loans in a trust and issuing Fannie Mae MBS that are backed by those mortgage loans. Monthly 
18

payments received on the loans are the primary source of payments passed through to Fannie Mae MBS holders. We 

guarantee to the MBS trust that we will supplement amounts received by the MBS trust as required to permit timely payment 

of principal and interest on the trust certificates. In return for this guaranty, we receive guaranty fees. 

Below we discuss (1) two broad categories of securitization transactions: lender swaps and portfolio securitizations; 

(2) features of our MBS trusts; (3) circumstances under which we purchase loans from MBS trusts; and (4) single-class and 

multi-class Fannie Mae MBS.

Lender Swaps and Portfolio Securitizations 

We currently securitize a substantial majority of the single-family and multifamily mortgage loans we acquire. Our 

securitization transactions primarily fall within two broad categories: lender swap transactions and portfolio securitizations.

Our most common type of securitization transaction is our “lender swap transaction.” Mortgage lenders that operate in the 

primary mortgage market generally deliver pools of mortgage loans to us in exchange for Fannie Mae MBS backed by these 

mortgage loans. A pool of mortgage loans is a group of mortgage loans with similar characteristics. After receiving the 

mortgage loans in a lender swap transaction, we place them in a trust for which we serve as trustee. This trust is established 

for the sole purpose of holding the mortgage loans separate and apart from our corporate assets. We deliver to the lender (or 

its designee) Fannie Mae MBS that are backed by the pool of mortgage loans in the trust and that represent an undivided 

beneficial ownership interest in each of the mortgage loans. We guarantee to each MBS trust that we will supplement 

amounts received by the MBS trust as required to permit timely payment of principal and interest on the related Fannie Mae 

MBS. We retain a portion of the interest payment as a fee for providing our guaranty. The mortgage servicer also retains a 

portion of the interest payment as a fee for servicing the loan. Then, on behalf of the trust, we make monthly distributions to 

the Fannie Mae MBS certificateholders from the principal and interest payments and other collections on the underlying 

mortgage loans. 

In contrast to our lender swap securitizations, in which lenders deliver pools of mortgage loans to us that we immediately 

place in a trust for securitization, our “portfolio securitization transactions” involve creating and issuing Fannie Mae MBS 

using mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities that we hold in our retained mortgage portfolio.

Features of Our MBS Trusts 

Our MBS trusts hold either single-family or multifamily mortgage loans or mortgage-related securities. Each trust operates in 

accordance with a trust agreement or a trust indenture. Each MBS trust is also governed by an issue supplement documenting 

the formation of that MBS trust, the identification of its related assets and the issuance of the related Fannie Mae MBS. The 

trust agreement or the trust indenture, together with the issue supplement and any amendments, are considered the “trust 

documents” that govern an individual MBS trust.

Purchases of Loans from our MBS Trusts 

Under the terms of our MBS trust documents, we have the option or, in some instances, the obligation, to purchase mortgage 

loans that meet specific criteria from an MBS trust. For example, we have the option under the terms of the trust documents 

to purchase a loan from an MBS trust if the loan is delinquent as to four or more consecutive monthly payments. We 

generally have the obligation to purchase a mortgage loan from an MBS trust when the mortgage loan becomes delinquent as 

to 24 monthly payments. Our acquisition cost for these loans is the unpaid principal balance of the loan plus accrued interest.

In deciding whether and when to exercise our option to purchase a loan from a single-family MBS trust, we consider a 

variety of factors, including: our legal ability to purchase loans under the terms of the trust documents; whether we have 

agreed to modify the loan, which we currently cannot do while it remains in trust; our mission and public policy; our loss 

mitigation strategies and the exposure to credit losses we face under our guaranty; our cost of funds; the impact on our results 

of operations; relevant market yields; the accounting impact; the administrative costs associated with purchasing and holding 

the loans; counterparty exposure to lenders that have agreed to cover losses associated with delinquent loans; and general 

market conditions. The weight we give to these factors changes depending on market circumstances and other factors.

The cost of purchasing most delinquent loans from Fannie Mae MBS trusts and holding them in our retained mortgage 

portfolio is currently less than the cost of advancing delinquent payments to security holders. We generally purchase loans 

from MBS trusts as they become four or more consecutive monthly payments delinquent. During 2015, we purchased 

delinquent loans with an unpaid principal balance of $13.2 billion 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.
19

For our multifamily MBS trusts, we typically exercise our option to purchase a loan from the trust if the loan is delinquent as 

to four or more consecutive monthly payments, whether those payments were made in whole or in part.

Single-Class and Multi-Class Fannie Mae MBS 

Fannie Mae MBS trusts may be single-class or multi-class. Single-class MBS are MBS in which the investors receive 

principal and interest payments on the mortgage loans backing the MBS directly in proportion to their percentage ownership 

of the MBS issuance. Multi-class MBS are MBS, including Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduits (“REMICs”), in 

which the cash flows on the underlying mortgage assets are divided, creating several classes of securities, each of which 

represents an undivided beneficial ownership interest in the assets of the related MBS trust and entitles the related holder to a 

specific portion of cash flows. Terms to maturity of some multi-class Fannie Mae MBS, particularly REMIC classes, may 

match or be shorter than the maturity of the underlying mortgage loans and/or mortgage-related securities. After these classes 

mature, cash flows received on the underlying mortgage assets are allocated to the remaining classes in accordance with the 

payment terms of the securities. As a result, each of the classes in a multi-class MBS may have a different coupon rate, 

average life, repayment sensitivity or final maturity. Structured Fannie Mae MBS are either multi-class MBS or single-class 

MBS that are typically resecuritizations of other single-class Fannie Mae MBS. In a resecuritization, pools of MBS are 

collected and securitized. 

BUSINESS SEGMENTS

We have three business segments for management reporting purposes: Single-Family Credit Guaranty, Multifamily and 

Capital Markets. In this report we refer to our business groups that run these segments as our “Single-Family business,” our 

“Multifamily business” and our “Capital Markets group.” These groups engage in complementary business activities in 

pursuing our mission of providing liquidity, stability and affordability to the U.S. housing market. These activities are 

summarized in the table below and described in more detail following this table. We also summarize in the table below the 

key sources of revenue for each of our segments and the primary expenses.

Business Segment Primary Business Activities Primary Drivers of Revenue Primary Drivers of Expense

Single-Family Mortgage acquisitions: Works with 

our lender customers to acquire 

single-family mortgage loans 

through lender swap transactions or, 

working also with our Capital 

Markets group, through loan 

purchases 

Credit risk management: Prices and 

manages the credit risk on loans in 

our single-family guaranty book of 

business. Also enters into 

transactions that transfer a portion of 

the credit risk on some of the loans 

in our single-family guaranty book 

of business

Credit loss management: Works to 

prevent foreclosures and reduce 

costs of defaulted single-family 

loans through home retention 

solutions and foreclosure 

alternatives, through management of 

foreclosures and REO, and through 

pursuing contractual remedies from 

lenders, servicers and providers of 

credit enhancement

Guaranty fees: Compensation 

for assuming and managing the 

credit risk on our single-family 

guaranty book of business

Interest income not recognized: 

Consists of reimbursement costs 

for interest income not 

recognized for loans on 

nonaccrual status in our retained 

mortgage portfolio or in 

consolidated trusts, which are 

recorded as a reduction to our 

interest income

Credit-related expense: Consists 

of the provision for single-family 

credit losses and foreclosed 

property expense on loans 

underlying our single-family 

guaranty book of business

Administrative expenses:

Consists of salaries and benefits, 

occupancy costs, professional 

services, and other expenses 

associated with our SingleFamily business operations

TCCA fees: Consists of a portion 

of our guaranty fees that is 

remitted to Treasury pursuant to 

the TCCA. We expect TCCA

fees will increase in future 

periods
20

Business Segment Primary Business Activities Primary Drivers of Revenue Primary Drivers of Expense

Multifamily Mortgage securitizations: Works 

with our lender customers, primarily 

through our Delegated Underwriting 

and Servicing, or DUS®, program, 

to securitize multifamily mortgage 

loans delivered to us by lenders into 

Fannie Mae MBS in lender swap 

transactions

Credit risk management: Prices and 

manages the credit risk on loans in 

our multifamily guaranty book of 

business. Lenders retain a portion of 

the credit risk in most multifamily 

transactions

Credit loss management: Works to 

prevent foreclosures and reduce 

costs of defaulted multifamily loans 

through foreclosure alternatives, 

through management of foreclosures 

and REO, and through pursuing 

contractual remedies from lenders, 

servicers and providers of credit 

enhancement

Guaranty fees: Compensation 

for assuming and managing the 

credit risk on our multifamily 

guaranty book of business

Fee and other income: Other 

fees associated with multifamily 

business activities

Credit-related expense: Consists 

of the provision for multifamily 

credit losses and foreclosed 

property expense on loans 

underlying our multifamily 

guaranty book of business

Administrative expenses: 

Consists of salaries and benefits, 

occupancy costs, professional 

services, and other expenses 

associated with our Multifamily 

business operations

Capital

Markets

Mortgage and other investments: 

Purchases mortgage assets and 

invests in non-mortgage interestearning assets

Mortgage securitizations: Purchases 

loans from a large group of lenders, 

securitizes them, and may sell the 

securities to dealers and investors

Structured mortgage securitizations 

and other customer services: Issues 

structured Fannie Mae MBS for 

customers in exchange for a 

transaction fee and provides other 

fee-related services to our lender 

customers

Interest rate risk management:

Manages the interest rate risk on our 

portfolio by issuing a variety of debt 

securities in a wide range of 

maturities and by using derivatives

Net interest income: Generated 

from the difference between the 

interest income earned on our 

interest-earning assets and the 

interest expense associated with 

the debt funding those assets

Fee and other income: 

Compensation received for 

engaging in structured 

transactions and providing other 

lender services. In addition, the 

substantial majority of fee and 

other income for 2013 and 2014 

consisted of income resulting 

from settlement agreements 

resolving certain lawsuits 

relating to PLS sold to us 

Fair value gains and losses: 

Primarily consists of fair value 

gains and losses on derivatives, 

trading securities and other 

financial instruments

Investment gains and losses: 

Primarily consists of (1) gains 

and losses on the sale or 

securitization of mortgage assets 

and (2) impairments recognized 

on our investments

Administrative expenses: 

Consists of salaries and benefits, 

occupancy costs, professional 

services, and other expenses 

associated with our Capital 

Markets business operations

Revenues from our Business Segments 

Table 4 displays our total net revenues for each of our business segments for each of the last three years. Net revenues include 

net interest income, guaranty fee income, and fee and other income. Under our segment reporting, the sum of the results for 

our three business segments does not equal our 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. We also include a 

reconciling items category to reconcile our business segment financial results and the activity related to our consolidated 

trusts to net income in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. For more information about the 

financial results and performance and total assets of each of our segments, see “MD&A—Business Segment Results” and 

“Note 12, Segment Reporting.”
21

Table 4: Business Segment Revenues

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Single-Family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $13,326 $12,332 $11,303

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,612 1,384 1,325

Capital Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,174 11,182 11,659

Reconciling items. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,645 957 2,047

 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $22,757 $25,855 $26,334

Single-Family Business 

Working with our lender customers, our Single-Family business provides funds to the mortgage market by acquiring singlefamily loans through lender swap transactions or, working also with our Capital Markets group, through loan purchases. Our 

Single-Family business has primary responsibility for pricing and managing the credit risk on our single-family guaranty 

book of business, which consists of single-family mortgage loans underlying Fannie Mae MBS and single-family loans held 

in our retained mortgage portfolio.

A single-family loan is secured by a property with four or fewer residential units. Our Single-Family business and Capital 

Markets group securitize and purchase primarily conventional (not federally insured or guaranteed) single-family fixed-rate 

or adjustable-rate, first-lien mortgage loans, or mortgage-related securities backed by these types of loans. We also securitize 

or purchase loans insured by FHA, loans guaranteed by the VA, loans guaranteed by the Rural Development Housing and 

Community Facilities Program of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, manufactured housing loans and other mortgagerelated securities.

Revenues for our Single-Family business are derived primarily from guaranty fees received as compensation for assuming 

the credit risk on the mortgage loans underlying single-family Fannie Mae MBS. We also allocate guaranty fee revenues to 

the Single-Family business for assuming and managing the credit risk on the single-family mortgage loans held in our 

retained mortgage portfolio. The aggregate amount of single-family guaranty fees we receive or that are allocated to our 

Single-Family business in any period depends on the amount of single-family Fannie Mae MBS outstanding and loans held in 

our retained mortgage portfolio during the period and the applicable guaranty fee rates. The amount of Fannie Mae MBS 

outstanding at any time is primarily determined by the rate at which we issue new Fannie Mae MBS and by the repayment 

rate for the loans underlying our outstanding Fannie Mae MBS. 

We describe the credit risk management process employed by our Single-Family business, with oversight from our SingleFamily Enterprise Risk Management group, including its key strategies in managing credit risk and key metrics used in 

measuring and evaluating our single-family credit risk, in “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—SingleFamily Mortgage Credit Risk Management.”

Single-Family Mortgage Securitizations and Other Acquisitions 

Our Single-Family business securitizes single-family mortgage loans and issues single-class Fannie Mae MBS, which are 

described above in “Mortgage Securitizations—Single-Class and Multi-Class Fannie Mae MBS,” for our lender customers. 

Unlike our Capital Markets group, which securitizes loans from our retained mortgage portfolio, our Single-Family business 

securitizes loans solely in lender swap transactions. We describe lender swap transactions, and how they differ from portfolio 

securitizations, in “Mortgage Securitizations—Lender Swaps and Portfolio Securitizations.” Our Single-Family business also 

works with our Capital Markets group to acquire single-family loans through purchases of loans.

Loans from our lender customers are delivered to us through either our “flow” or “bulk” transaction channels. In our flow 

business, we enter into agreements that generally set agreed-upon guaranty fees and other contract terms for a lender’s future 

delivery of individual loans to us over a specified time period. Our bulk business generally consists of transactions in which a 

set of loans is delivered to us in bulk, typically with guaranty fees and other contract terms negotiated individually for each 

transaction.
22

Single-Family Mortgage Servicing, REO Management, and Lender Repurchase Evaluations 

Servicing

Generally, the servicing of the mortgage loans that are held in our retained mortgage portfolio or that back our Fannie Mae 

MBS is performed by mortgage servicers on our behalf. Some loans are serviced for us by the lenders that initially sold the 

loans to us. In other cases, our loans are serviced by third-party servicers that did not originate or sell the loans to us. For 

loans we own or guarantee, the lender or servicer must obtain our approval before selling servicing rights to another servicer.

Our mortgage servicers typically collect and deliver principal and interest payments, administer escrow accounts, monitor 

and report delinquencies, perform default prevention activities, evaluate transfers of ownership interests, respond to requests 

for partial releases of security, and handle proceeds from casualty and condemnation losses. Our mortgage servicers are the 

primary point of contact for borrowers and perform a key role in the effective implementation of our homeownership 

assistance initiatives, negotiation of workouts of troubled loans, and other loss mitigation activities. If necessary, mortgage 

servicers inspect and preserve properties and process foreclosures and bankruptcies. Because we generally delegate the 

servicing of our mortgage loans to mortgage servicers and do not have our own servicing function, our ability to actively 

manage troubled loans that we own or guarantee is limited. For more information on the risks of our reliance on servicers, 

refer to “Risk Factors” and “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk 

Management.”

We compensate servicers primarily by permitting them to retain a specified portion of each interest payment on a serviced 

mortgage loan as a servicing fee. Servicers also generally retain assumption fees, late payment charges and other similar 

charges, to the extent they are collected from borrowers, as additional servicing compensation. We also compensate servicers 

for negotiating workouts on problem loans.

REO Management

If a loan defaults and we acquire a home through foreclosure or a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, we market and sell the home 

through local real estate professionals. Our primary objectives are both to minimize the severity of loss to Fannie Mae by 

maximizing sales prices and to stabilize neighborhoods by preventing empty homes from depressing home values. In cases 

where the property does not sell, we use alternative methods of disposition, including selling homes to municipalities, other 

public entities or non-profit organizations, and selling properties in bulk or through public auctions.

Lender Repurchase Evaluations

We conduct post-purchase quality control file reviews to ensure that loans sold to, and serviced for, us meet our guidelines. If 

we discover violations through reviews, we generally issue repurchase demands to the seller or other responsible party and 

seek to collect on our repurchase claims; 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. We discuss changes we have made to our post-purchase loan review process and our representation and 

warranty framework in “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk 

Management—Single-Family Acquisition and Servicing Policies and Underwriting and Servicing Standards.”

Single-Family Credit Risk Transfer 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. For a discussion of our single-family credit 

risk transfer transactions, see “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit 

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

Multifamily Business 

Our Multifamily business provides mortgage market liquidity for properties with five or more residential units, which may be 

apartment communities, cooperative properties, seniors housing, dedicated student housing or manufactured housing 

communities. Our Multifamily business works with our lender customers to provide funds to the mortgage market primarily 

by securitizing multifamily mortgage loans into Fannie Mae MBS. We also purchase multifamily mortgage loans and provide 

credit enhancement for bonds issued by state and local housing finance authorities to finance multifamily housing. 

Our Multifamily business also works with our Capital Markets group to facilitate the purchase and securitization of 

multifamily mortgage loans and securities. Our multifamily guaranty book of business consists primarily of multifamily 

mortgage loans underlying Fannie Mae MBS and multifamily loans held in our retained mortgage portfolio. Our Multifamily 
23

business has primary responsibility for pricing and managing the credit risk on our multifamily guaranty book of business, 

including managing the credit risk on multifamily loans and Fannie Mae MBS backed by multifamily loans that are held in 

our retained mortgage portfolio.

We describe the credit risk management process employed by our Multifamily business, with oversight from our Multifamily 

Enterprise Risk Management group, including its key strategies in managing credit risk and key metrics used in measuring 

and evaluating our multifamily credit risk, in “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Multifamily 

Mortgage Credit Risk Management.”

Revenues for our Multifamily business are derived from a variety of sources, including: (1) guaranty fees received as 

compensation for assuming credit risk on the mortgage loans underlying multifamily Fannie Mae MBS and on the 

multifamily mortgage loans held in our retained mortgage portfolio and on other mortgage-related securities; and (2) other 

fees associated with multifamily business activities. In addition, our Capital Markets group earns revenue generated from the 

difference between the interest income earned on the multifamily mortgage loans and securities held in our retained mortgage 

portfolio and the interest expense associated with the debt that funds those loans and securities, as well as yield maintenance 

income and revenue related to other market-making activity.

Key Characteristics of the Multifamily Mortgage Market and Multifamily Transactions 

The multifamily mortgage market and our transactions in that market have a number of key characteristics that affect our 

multifamily activities and distinguish them from our activities in the single-family residential mortgage market.

• Funding sources: The multifamily market is made up of a wide variety of lending sources, including commercial 

banks, life insurance companies, investment banks, FHA, state and local housing finance agencies, and the GSEs.

• Lenders: During 2015, we executed multifamily transactions with 28 lenders. Of these, 25 lenders delivered loans to 

us under our DUSprogram. In determining whether to partner with a multifamily lender, we consider the lender’s 

financial strength, multifamily underwriting and servicing experience, portfolio performance and willingness and 

ability to share in the risk of loss associated with the multifamily loans they originate.

• Loan size: The average size of a loan in our multifamily guaranty book of business is $7 million. 

• Collateral: Multifamily loans are collateralized by properties that generate cash flows and effectively operate as 

businesses, such as garden and high-rise apartment complexes, seniors housing communities, cooperatives, 

dedicated student housing and manufactured housing communities.

• Borrower and sponsor profile: Multifamily borrowers are entities that are typically owned, directly or indirectly, by 

for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, partnerships, real estate investment trusts and individuals who 

invest in real estate for cash flow and equity returns in exchange for their original investment in the asset. The 

ultimate owners of a multifamily borrower are referred to as the borrower’s “sponsors.” In this report, we refer to 

both the borrowing entities and their sponsors as “borrowers.” Because borrowing entities are typically single-asset 

entities, with the property as their only asset, in evaluating a borrowing entity we also evaluate its sponsors. 

Multifamily loans are generally non-recourse to the sponsors. When considering a multifamily borrower, 

creditworthiness is evaluated through a combination of quantitative and qualitative data including liquid assets, net 

worth, number of units owned, experience in a market and/or property type, multifamily portfolio performance, 

access to additional liquidity, debt maturities, asset/property management platform, senior management experience, 

reputation and lender exposure. 

• Borrower and lender alignment: Borrowers are required to contribute equity into multifamily properties on which 

they borrow, while lenders generally share in any losses realized from the loans that we guarantee.

• Underwriting process: Multifamily loans require detailed underwriting of the property’s operating cash flow. Our 

underwriting includes an evaluation of the property’s ability to support the loan, property quality, market and 

submarket factors, ability to exit at maturity and an initial risk categorization for the loan. 

• Term and lifecycle: In contrast to the standard 30-year single-family residential loan, multifamily loans typically 

have terms of 5, 7 or 10 years, with balloon payments due at maturity.

• Prepayment terms: Most multifamily Fannie Mae loans and MBS have protection against prepayments of loans and 

impose prepayment premiums, consistent with standard commercial investment terms. 

Multifamily Mortgage Securitizations 

Our Multifamily business generally creates multifamily Fannie Mae MBS in lender swap transactions in a manner similar to 

our Single-Family business, as described in “Single-Family Business—Single-Family Mortgage Securitizations and Other 
24

Acquisitions.” Our multifamily lender customers typically deliver only one mortgage loan to back each multifamily Fannie 

Mae MBS. The characteristics of each mortgage loan are used to establish guaranty fees on a risk-adjusted basis. Securitizing 

a single multifamily mortgage loan into a Fannie Mae MBS facilitates its sale into the secondary market.

We also issue structured transactions backed by multifamily Fannie Mae MBS through the Fannie Mae Guaranteed 

Multifamily Structures (“Fannie Mae GeMSTM”) program. This provides additional liquidity and stability to the multifamily 

market, while expanding the investor base for multifamily Fannie Mae MBS.

Delegated Underwriting and Servicing 

In an effort to promote product standardization in the multifamily marketplace, in 1988 Fannie Mae initiated the DUS 

program for acquiring individual multifamily loans.

DUS is a unique business model in the commercial mortgage industry. The standard industry practice for a multifamily loan 

requires the purchaser or guarantor to underwrite or re-underwrite each loan prior to deciding whether to purchase or 

guaranty the loan. Under our model, DUS lenders are pre-approved and delegated the authority to underwrite and service 

loans on behalf of Fannie Mae. In exchange for this authority, DUS lenders are required to share with us the risk of loss over 

the life of the loan, as discussed in more detail in “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Multifamily 

Mortgage Credit Risk Management—Multifamily Acquisition Policy and Underwriting Standards.” Since DUS lenders share 

in the credit risk, the servicing fee to the lenders includes compensation for credit risk. Delegation permits lenders to respond 

to customers more rapidly, as the lender generally has the authority to approve a loan within prescribed parameters, which 

provides an important competitive advantage.

Our DUS model aligns the interests of the lender and Fannie Mae. Our current 25-member DUS lender network, which is 

comprised of large financial institutions and independent mortgage lenders, continues to be our principal source of 

multifamily loan deliveries.

Multifamily Mortgage Servicing 

Multifamily mortgage servicing is typically performed by the lenders who sell the mortgages to us. Multifamily mortgage 

servicers that are members of our DUS network have agreed to accept loss sharing, which we believe increases the alignment 

of interests between us and our multifamily loan servicers. Because of our loss-sharing arrangements with our multifamily 

lenders, transfers of multifamily servicing rights are infrequent, and we carefully monitor our servicing relationships and 

enforce our right to approve servicing transfers. As a seller-servicer, the lender is responsible for evaluating the financial 

condition of properties and property owners, administering various types of agreements (including agreements regarding 

replacement reserves, completion or repair, and operations and maintenance), as well as conducting routine property 

inspections.

The Multifamily Markets in Which We Operate 

In the multifamily mortgage market, we aim to address the rental housing needs of a wide range of the population in all 

markets across the country, with the substantial majority of our focus on supporting rental housing that is affordable to 

families earning at or below the median income in their area. Our mission requires us to serve the market steadily, rather than 

moving in and out depending on market conditions. Through the secondary mortgage market, we support rental housing for 

the workforce population, for senior citizens and students, and for families with the greatest economic need. Our Multifamily 

business is organized and operated as an integrated commercial real estate finance business, addressing the spectrum of 

multifamily housing finance needs, including the needs described below.

• To meet the growing need for smaller multifamily property financing, we focus on the acquisition of multifamily 

loans up to $3 million ($5 million in high cost areas). We acquire these loans primarily from DUS lenders; however, 

we have also acquired these loans from other financial institutions. Over the years, we have been an active purchaser 

of these loans from both DUS and non-DUS lenders, and, as of December 31, 2015, they represented 54% of our 

multifamily guaranty book of business by loan count and 10% based on unpaid principal balance.

• To serve low- and very low-income households, we have a team that focuses exclusively on relationships with 

lenders financing privately-owned multifamily properties that receive public subsidies in exchange for maintaining 

long-term affordable rents. We enable borrowers to leverage housing programs and subsidies provided by local, state 

and federal agencies. These public subsidy programs are largely targeted to providing housing to families earning 

less than 60% of area median income (as defined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 

(“HUD”)) and are structured to ensure that the low and very low-income households who benefit from the subsidies 

pay no more than 30% of their gross monthly income for rent and utilities. As of December 31, 2015, this type of 
25

financing represented approximately 14% of our multifamily guaranty book of business, based on unpaid principal 

balance, including $13.3 billion in bond credit enhancements.

Capital Markets 

Our Capital Markets group manages our mortgage-related assets and other interest-earning non-mortgage investments. We 

fund our purchases primarily through proceeds we receive from the issuance of debt securities in the domestic and 

international capital markets. Our Capital Markets group has primary responsibility for managing the interest rate risk 

associated with our investments in mortgage assets, with oversight from our Capital Markets Enterprise Risk Management 

group.

Our Capital Markets group’s business activity is primarily focused on making short-term use of our balance sheet rather than 

on long-term investments. As a result, our Capital Markets group works with lender customers to provide funds to the 

mortgage market through short-term financing and investing activities. Activities we are undertaking to provide liquidity to 

the mortgage market include the following:

• Whole Loan Conduit. Whole loan conduit activities involve our purchase of single-family loans principally for the 

purpose of securitizing them. We purchase loans from a large group of lenders and then securitize them as Fannie 

Mae MBS, which may then be sold to dealers and investors.

• Early Funding. Lenders who deliver whole loans or pools of whole loans to us in exchange for MBS typically must 

wait between 30 and 45 days from the closing and settlement of the loans or pools and the issuance of the MBS. 

This delay may limit lenders’ ability to originate new loans. Under our early lender funding programs, we purchase 

whole loans or pools of loans on an accelerated basis, allowing lenders to receive quicker payment for the whole 

loans and pools, which replenishes their funds and allows them to originate more mortgage loans.

• REMICs and Other Structured Securitizations. We issue structured Fannie Mae MBS (including REMICs), typically 

for our lender customers or securities dealer customers, in exchange for a transaction fee.

• MBS Trading. We regularly enter into purchase and sale transactions with other market participants involving 

mortgage-backed securities issued by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae, which we refer to as “agency 

MBS.” These transactions can provide for the future delivery of mortgage-backed securities with underlying singlefamily loans that share certain general characteristics (often referred to as the “TBA market”). These purchase and 

sale transactions also can provide for the future delivery of specifically identified mortgage-backed securities with 

underlying loans that have other characteristics considered desirable by some investors (often referred to as the 

“Specified Pools market”). Through our trading activity in the TBA and Specified Pools markets, we provide 

significant liquidity to the agency MBS markets.

Securitization Activities 

Our Capital Markets group is engaged in issuing both single-class and multi-class Fannie Mae MBS through both portfolio 

securitizations and structured securitizations involving third-party assets.

• Portfolio securitizations. Our Capital Markets group creates single-class and multi-class Fannie Mae MBS from 

mortgage-related assets held in our retained mortgage portfolio. Our Capital Markets group may sell these Fannie 

Mae MBS into the secondary market or may retain the Fannie Mae MBS in our retained mortgage portfolio.

• Structured securitizations. Our Capital Markets group creates single-class and multi-class structured Fannie Mae 

MBS, typically for our lender customers or securities dealer customers, in exchange for a transaction fee. In these 

transactions, the customer “swaps” a mortgage-related asset that it owns (typically a mortgage security) in exchange 

for a structured Fannie Mae MBS we issue. The process for issuing Fannie Mae MBS in a structured securitization 

is similar to the process involved in our lender swap securitizations. For more information about that process and 

how it differs from portfolio securitizations, see “Mortgage Securitizations—Lender Swaps and Portfolio 

Securitizations.”

For a description of single-class Fannie Mae MBS, see “Mortgage Securitizations—Single-Class and Multi-Class Fannie 

Mae MBS.”

Other Customer Services 

Our Capital Markets group provides our lender customers with services that include offering to purchase mortgage assets; 

segregating customer portfolios to obtain optimal pricing for their mortgage loans; and assisting customers with hedging their 

mortgage business. These activities help to create a broader market for our customers and enhance liquidity in the secondary 

mortgage market.
26

Retained Mortgage Portfolio 

Revenue from our Capital Markets group is derived primarily from the difference, or spread, between the interest we earn on 

our mortgage and non-mortgage investments and the interest we incur on the debt we issue to fund these assets. Our Capital 

Markets revenues are primarily derived from our retained mortgage portfolio. We expect these revenues to continue to 

decrease over time as the maximum allowable amount of mortgage assets we may own continues to decrease each year 

through 2018 under our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury and pursuant to FHFA’s additional request 

that we cap our mortgage portfolio at 90% of the annual limit under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. See 

“Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements—Treasury Agreements—Covenants under Treasury Agreements” for more 

information on the decreasing limits on the amount of mortgage assets we are permitted to hold.

We describe the interest rate risk management process employed by our Capital Markets group, including its key strategies in 

managing interest rate risk and key metrics used in measuring and evaluating our interest rate risk, in “MD&A—Risk 

Management—Market Risk Management, Including Interest Rate Risk Management.”

Liquidity Support and Financing Activities 

Our Capital Markets group seeks to increase the liquidity of the mortgage market by maintaining a presence as an active 

aggregator of mortgage loans and supports the liquidity of Fannie Mae MBS in a variety of market conditions.

Our Capital Markets group funds its purchases primarily through the issuance of a variety of debt securities in a wide range 

of maturities in the domestic and international capital markets. The most active investors in our debt securities include 

commercial bank portfolios and trust departments, investment fund managers, insurance companies, pension funds, state and 

local governments, and central banks. The approved dealers for underwriting various types of Fannie Mae debt securities may 

differ by funding program. See “MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity Management” for information on 

the composition of our outstanding debt and a discussion of our liquidity and debt activity.

Our Capital Markets group’s liquidity support and financing activities are affected by market conditions. In addition, the 

Capital Markets group’s purchases are subject to contractual limitations, including the provisions of the senior preferred stock 

purchase agreement with Treasury, and to regulatory constraints, to the extent described below under “Conservatorship and 

Treasury Agreements” and “Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities.”

CONSERVATORSHIP AND TREASURY AGREEMENTS

Conservatorship 

On September 6, 2008, the Director of FHFA appointed FHFA as our conservator, pursuant to authority provided by the 

Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by the 2008 Reform Act (together, the 

“GSE Act”). The conservatorship is a statutory process designed to preserve and conserve our assets and property and put the 

company in a sound and solvent condition.

The conservatorship has no specified termination date and 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. For more information on the risks to our business relating to the conservatorship and uncertainties regarding 

the future of our company and business, as well as the adverse effects of the conservatorship on the rights of holders of our 

common and preferred stock, see “Risk Factors.”

Management of the Company during Conservatorship 

Upon its appointment, the conservator immediately succeeded to (1) all rights, titles, powers and privileges of Fannie Mae, 

and of any shareholder, 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 subsequently delegated specified authorities 

to our Board of Directors and delegated to management the authority to conduct our day-to-day operations. In connection 

with its delegation of authority, FHFA has instructed the Board to oversee that management consult with and obtain the 

written approval of the conservator before taking action in any of the areas described in “Directors, Executive Officers and 

Corporate Governance—Corporate Governance—Conservatorship and Delegation of Authority to Board of Directors.” 

FHFA’s instructions also require the company to notify FHFA of planned changes in business processes or operations, so that 

FHFA may participate in decision-making as FHFA determines appropriate. The conservator retains the authority to amend or 

withdraw its delegations at any time. 
27

Our directors serve on behalf of the conservator and exercise their authority as directed by and with the approval, where 

required, of the conservator. Our directors have no fiduciary duties to any person or entity except to the conservator. 

Accordingly, our directors 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. 

Because we are in conservatorship, our common stockholders currently do not have the ability to elect directors or to vote on 

other matters. The conservator eliminated common and preferred stock dividends (other than dividends on the senior 

preferred stock issued to Treasury) during the conservatorship, and we are no longer managed with a strategy to maximize 

shareholder returns. For additional information about our primary goals, see “Executive Summary—Our Strategy and 

Business Objectives,” and for additional information about the goals of the conservatorship, see “Executive Summary—

Helping to Build a Sustainable Housing Finance System” and “Housing Finance Reform—Conservator Developments.”

Powers of the Conservator under the GSE Act 

FHFA has broad powers when acting as our conservator. As conservator, FHFA can direct us to enter into contracts or enter 

into contracts on our behalf. Further, FHFA may transfer or sell any of our assets or liabilities (subject to limitations and posttransfer notice provisions for transfers of certain types of financial contracts), without any approval, assignment of rights or 

consent of any party. The GSE Act provides, however, that mortgage loans and mortgage-related assets that have been 

transferred to a Fannie Mae MBS trust must be held by the conservator for the beneficial owners of the Fannie Mae MBS and 

cannot be used to satisfy the general creditors of the company. For more information on FHFA’s powers as conservator and 

the rules governing conservatorship and receivership operations for the GSEs, see “Our Charter and Regulation of Our 

Activities—The GSE Act—Receivership.”

Neither the conservatorship nor the terms of our agreements with Treasury change our obligation to make required payments 

on our debt securities or perform under our mortgage guaranty obligations.

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 (that is, we have a net worth deficit) 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 in 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. Placement into receivership would likely have a material adverse 

effect on holders of our common stock and preferred stock, and could have a material adverse effect on holders of our debt 

securities and Fannie Mae MBS. 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. For more information 

on the risks to our business relating to conservatorship and uncertainties regarding the future of our business, see “Risk 

Factors.”

Treasury Agreements 

On September 7, 2008, we, through FHFA, in its capacity as conservator, and Treasury entered into a senior preferred stock 

purchase agreement, which was amended and restated on September 26, 2008. The amended and restated agreement was 

subsequently amended on May 6, 2009, December 24, 2009 and August 17, 2012. Unless the context indicates otherwise, 

references in this report to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement refer to the agreement as amended through 

August 17, 2012. The terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, senior preferred stock and the warrant 

discussed below will continue to apply to us even if we are released from conservatorship. See “Risk Factors” for a 

description of the risks to our business relating to the Treasury agreements, as well as the adverse effects of the senior 

preferred stock and the warrant on the rights of holders of our common stock and other series of preferred stock.

Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement and Related Issuance of Senior Preferred Stock and Common Stock Warrant 

Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement 

Under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, we issued to Treasury (a) one million shares of Variable Liquidation 

Preference Senior Preferred Stock, Series 2008-2, which we refer to as the “senior preferred stock,” and (b) a warrant to 

purchase, for a nominal price, shares of common stock equal to 79.9% of the total number of shares of our common stock 

outstanding on a fully diluted basis at the time the warrant is exercised, which we refer to as the “warrant.”

The senior preferred stock and warrant were issued to Treasury as an initial commitment fee in consideration of the 

commitment from Treasury to provide funds to us under the terms and conditions set forth in the senior preferred stock 

purchase agreement. The senior preferred stock purchase agreement provides that, on a quarterly basis, we may draw funds 

up to the amount, if any, by which our total liabilities exceed our total assets, as reflected in our consolidated balance sheet, 

prepared in accordance with GAAP, for the applicable fiscal quarter (referred to as the “deficiency amount”), up to the 
28

maximum amount of remaining funding under the agreement. 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. The 

senior preferred stock purchase agreement provides that the deficiency amount will be calculated differently if we become 

subject to receivership or other liquidation process.

The terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement provided for the payment of an unspecified quarterly 

commitment fee to Treasury; however, the August 2012 amendment to the agreement provided that this commitment fee will 

not be set, accrue or be payable, as long as the current dividend payment provisions of the senior preferred stock remain in 

effect.

The senior preferred stock purchase agreement provides that Treasury’s funding commitment will terminate under any of the 

following circumstances: (1) the completion of our liquidation and fulfillment of Treasury’s obligations under its funding 

commitment at that time, (2) the payment in full of, or reasonable provision for, all of our liabilities (whether or not 

contingent, including mortgage guaranty obligations), or (3) the funding by Treasury of the maximum amount that may be 

funded under the agreement. In addition, Treasury may terminate its funding commitment and declare the senior preferred 

stock purchase agreement null and void if a court vacates, modifies, amends, conditions, enjoins, stays or otherwise affects 

the appointment of the conservator or otherwise curtails the conservator’s powers. Treasury may not terminate its funding 

commitment under the agreement solely by reason of our being in conservatorship, receivership or other insolvency 

proceeding, or due to our financial condition or any adverse change in our financial condition.

The senior preferred stock purchase agreement provides that most provisions of the agreement may be waived or amended by 

mutual written agreement of the parties; however, no waiver or amendment of the agreement is permitted that would decrease 

Treasury’s aggregate funding commitment or add conditions to Treasury’s funding commitment if the waiver or amendment 

would adversely affect in any material respect the holders of our debt securities or guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS.

In the event of our default on payments with respect to our debt securities or guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS, if Treasury fails 

to perform its obligations under its funding commitment and if we and/or the conservator are not diligently pursuing remedies 

in respect of that failure, the holders of our debt securities or Fannie Mae MBS may file a claim in the United States Court of 

Federal Claims for relief requiring Treasury to fund to us the lesser of (1) the amount necessary to cure the payment defaults 

on our debt and Fannie Mae MBS and (2) the lesser of (a) the deficiency amount and (b) the maximum amount that may be 

funded under the agreement less the aggregate amount of funding previously provided under the commitment. Any payment 

that Treasury makes under those circumstances will be treated for all purposes as a draw under the senior preferred stock 

purchase agreement that will increase the liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock.

Senior Preferred Stock 

Pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, we issued one million shares of senior preferred stock to Treasury 

on September 8, 2008 with an aggregate initial liquidation preference of $1.0 billion. The stock’s liquidation preference is 

subject to adjustment. For any dividend period for which dividends are payable, to the extent that dividends are not paid in 

cash they will accrue and be added to the liquidation preference. In addition, any amounts Treasury pays to us pursuant to its 

funding commitment under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement and any quarterly commitment fees that are either 

not paid in cash to Treasury or not waived by Treasury will be added to the liquidation preference. Accordingly, the aggregate 

liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock was $117.1 billion as of December 31, 2015.

Treasury, as holder of the senior preferred stock, is entitled to receive, when, as and if declared, out of legally available funds, 

cumulative quarterly cash dividends. Pursuant to the August 2012 amendment to the agreement, beginning in 2013, the 

method for calculating the amount of dividends for each quarter was changed from an annual rate of 10% per year on the 

then-current liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock to an amount determined based on our net worth as of the 

end of the immediately preceding fiscal quarter. Our net worth as defined by the agreement is the amount, if any, by which 

our total assets (excluding Treasury’s funding commitment and any unfunded amounts related to the commitment) exceed our 

total liabilities (excluding any obligation in respect of capital stock), in each case as reflected on our balance sheet prepared 

in accordance with GAAP. For each dividend period from January 1, 2013 through and including December 31, 2017, the 

dividend amount will be 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. The capital reserve amount was initially $3.0 billion for dividend periods in 

2013 and decreases by $600 million each year until it reaches zero on January 1, 2018. Accordingly, the capital reserve 

amount was $1.8 billion for dividend periods in 2015 and decreased to $1.2 billion for dividend periods in 2016. The capital 

reserve amount will be $600 million for dividend periods in 2017. For each dividend period beginning in 2018, the dividend 

amount will be the entire amount of our net worth, if any, as of the end of the immediately preceding fiscal quarter. As a 
29

result of these dividend payment provisions and quarterly directives from our conservator, when we have quarterly earnings 

that result in a net worth greater than the applicable capital reserve amount, we will pay dividends to Treasury in the next 

quarter; but if our net worth does not exceed the applicable capital reserve amount as of the end of a quarter, then we will not 

be required to accrue or pay any dividends in the next quarter. See “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks relating to our 

dividend obligations to Treasury on the senior preferred stock.

The senior preferred stock ranks ahead of our common stock and all other outstanding series of our preferred stock, as well as 

any capital stock we issue in the future, as to both dividends and rights upon liquidation. The senior preferred stock provides 

that we may not, at any time, declare or pay dividends on, make distributions with respect to, or redeem, purchase or acquire, 

or make a liquidation payment with respect to, any common stock or other securities ranking junior to the senior preferred 

stock unless (1) full cumulative dividends on the outstanding senior preferred stock (including any unpaid dividends added to 

the liquidation preference) have been declared and paid in cash, and (2) all amounts required to be paid with the net proceeds 

of any issuance of capital stock for cash (as described in the following paragraph) have been paid in cash. Shares of the senior 

preferred stock are not convertible. Shares of the senior preferred stock have no general or special voting rights, other than 

those set forth in the certificate of designation for the senior preferred stock or otherwise required by law. The consent of 

holders of at least two-thirds of all outstanding shares of senior preferred stock is generally required to amend the terms of 

the senior preferred stock or to create any class or series of stock that ranks prior to or on parity with the senior preferred 

stock.

We are not permitted to redeem the senior preferred stock prior to the termination of Treasury’s funding commitment under 

the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. Moreover, we are not permitted to pay down the liquidation preference of the 

outstanding shares of senior preferred stock except to the extent of (1) accrued and unpaid dividends previously added to the 

liquidation preference and not previously paid down; and (2) quarterly commitment fees previously added to the liquidation 

preference and not previously paid down. In addition to these exceptions, if we issue any shares of capital stock for cash 

while the senior preferred stock is outstanding, the net proceeds of the issuance must be used to pay down the liquidation 

preference of the senior preferred stock; however, the liquidation preference of each share of senior preferred stock may not 

be paid down below $1,000 per share prior to the termination of Treasury’s funding commitment. Following the termination 

of Treasury’s funding commitment, we may pay down the liquidation preference of all outstanding shares of senior preferred 

stock at any time, in whole or in part.

Common Stock Warrant 

Pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, on September 7, 2008, we, through FHFA, in its capacity as 

conservator, issued a warrant to purchase common stock to Treasury. The warrant gives Treasury the right to purchase shares 

of our common stock equal to 79.9% of the total number of shares of our common stock outstanding on a fully diluted basis 

on the date of exercise, for an exercise price of $0.00001 per share. The warrant may be exercised in whole or in part at any 

time on or before September 7, 2028.

Covenants under Treasury Agreements 

The senior preferred stock purchase agreement and warrant contain covenants that significantly restrict our business activities 

and require the prior written consent of Treasury before we can take certain actions. These covenants prohibit us from taking 

a number of actions, including:

• paying dividends or other distributions on or repurchasing our equity securities (other than the senior preferred stock 

or warrant);

• issuing additional equity securities (except in limited instances);

• selling, transferring, leasing or otherwise disposing of any assets, except for dispositions for fair market value in 

limited circumstances including if (a) the transaction is in the ordinary course of business and consistent with past 

practice or (b) in one transaction or a series of related transactions if the assets have a fair market value individually 

or in the aggregate of less than $250 million;

• issuing subordinated debt; 

• entering into any new compensation arrangements or increasing amounts or benefits payable under existing 

compensation arrangements for any of our executive officers (as defined by SEC rules) without the consent of the 

Director of FHFA, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury; and 

• seeking or permitting the termination of our conservatorship, other than in connection with a receivership.
30

We also are subject to limits, which are described below, on the amount of mortgage assets that we may own and the total 

amount of our indebtedness. As a result of these covenants, we can no longer obtain additional equity financing (other than 

pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement) and we are limited in the amount and type of debt financing we 

may obtain.

• Mortgage Asset Limit. We are restricted in the amount of mortgage assets that we may own. Pursuant to the August 

2012 amendment to the agreement, the maximum allowable amount of our mortgage assets was reduced to $650.0 

billion on December 31, 2012 and, on each December 31 thereafter, 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. Our mortgage asset 

limit under the agreement was $399.2 billion as of December 31, 2015 and will be $339.3 billion as of December 

31, 2016. For purposes of the agreement, the definition of mortgage asset is based on the unpaid principal balance of 

such assets and does not reflect market valuation adjustments, allowance for loan losses, impairments, unamortized 

premiums and discounts and the impact of our consolidation of variable interest entities. Based on this definition, 

our mortgage assets were $345.1 billion as of December 31, 2015. We disclose the amount of our mortgage assets on 

a monthly basis under the caption “Gross Mortgage Portfolio” in our Monthly Summaries, which are available on 

our website and announced in a press release. 

In 2014, FHFA requested that we cap the portfolio each year at 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. To comply with FHFA’s 

request, we reduced our mortgage portfolio to $345.1 billion as of December 31, 2015, below the $359.3 billion cap 

requested by FHFA. See “MD&A—Business Segment Results—The Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio” 

for more information about our mortgage portfolio.

• Debt Limit. We are subject to a limit on the amount of our indebtedness. Our debt limit in 2015 was $563.6 billion

and in 2016 is $479.0 billion. For every year thereafter, our debt cap will equal 120% of the amount of mortgage 

assets we are allowed to own under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement on December 31 of the 

immediately preceding calendar year. The definition of indebtedness for purposes of our debt cap is based on the par 

value of each applicable loan and does not reflect the impact of consolidation of variable interest entities. Under this 

definition, our indebtedness as of December 31, 2015 was $389.5 billion. We disclose the amount of our 

indebtedness on a monthly basis under the caption “Total Debt Outstanding” in our Monthly Summaries, which are 

available on our website and announced in a press release. 

Annual Risk Management Plan Covenant. We are required to provide an annual risk management plan to Treasury not later 

than December 15 of each year we remain in conservatorship, beginning in 2012. Each annual risk management plan is 

required to set out our strategy for reducing our risk profile and to describe the actions we will take to reduce the financial 

and operational risk associated with each of our business segments. Each plan delivered after the first plan must include an 

assessment of our performance against the planned actions described in the prior year’s plan. We submitted our most recent 

annual risk management plan to Treasury in December 2015.

Lawsuits Challenging the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements and Conservatorship

Several lawsuits have been filed by preferred and common stockholders of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac against the United 

States, Treasury and/or 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. For a description of these lawsuits, see “Legal Proceedings” and “Note 18, Commitments and 

Contingencies.” 

HOUSING FINANCE REFORM

Overview

Policymakers and others have focused significant attention in recent years on how to reform the nation’s housing finance 

system, including what role, if any, the GSEs should play. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act 

(the “Dodd-Frank Act”), which was signed into law in July 2010, called for enactment of meaningful structural reforms of 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and for the Secretary of the Treasury to submit recommendations to Congress for ending the 

conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 
31

Administration Developments

In 2011, the Administration released a white paper with its recommendations on the future of housing finance reform. 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 identifies a number of possible 

policy steps for winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, reducing the government’s role in housing finance and helping 

bring private capital back to the mortgage market. In addition, the report outlines three potential options for a new long-term 

structure for the housing finance system following the wind-down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

In 2013, President Obama publicly discussed the Administration’s housing policy priorities, including a core principle that 

included winding 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. 

Moreover, to lay the groundwork for a future housing finance system, the Administration has advocated for credit risk on 

loans to be transferred by lenders prior to the acquisition of such loans by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (referred to as “frontend” risk transfer). The Administration has also advocated for the common securitization platform to be constructed to serve 

other market participants, not just Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

Legislative Developments 

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

in the future. 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. In November 2015, legislation was enacted limiting the compensation of Fannie 

Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s chief executive officers. For a description of this law, see “Our Charter and Regulation of Our 

Activities—The GSE Act—Executive Compensation” and “Executive Compensation—Compensation Discussion and 

Analysis—Impact of Conservatorship and Other Legal Requirements.” In December 2015, as part of a funding bill, Congress 

enacted a portion of the “Jumpstart GSE Reform Act” prohibiting Treasury from disposing of its Fannie Mae and Freddie 

Mac senior preferred stock until January 1, 2018, unless legislation is enacted that includes specific instruction for its 

disposition.

Congress also introduced and considered other bills relating to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the housing finance system in 

2015 that have not been enacted into law. For example, in May 2015, the Senate Banking Committee approved the Financial 

Regulatory Improvement Act of 2015, which contains provisions that would, among other matters:

• prevent the U.S. government from using increases in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac guaranty fees to finance 

government spending, unless a law is enacted to do so and the funds are used to finance secondary mortgage market 

reforms; 

• prohibit Treasury from disposing of its Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac senior preferred stock unless Congress enacts a 

law directing it to do so;

• establish requirements for CSS that include: expanding the CSS Board of Directors to include non-GSE 

representatives; transitioning ownership of CSS to a private, non-profit entity within five years; and facilitating the 

issuance of mortgage-backed securities by non-GSE issuers through its platform within three to five years; and

• require Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to engage in significant and increasing credit risk sharing transactions, 

including front-end and first-loss transactions.

We expect Congress to continue to consider legislation relating to the GSEs and housing finance reform in the current 

congressional session, including conducting hearings and considering legislation that would alter the housing finance system 

or the activities or operations of the GSEs. There continues to be significant uncertainty regarding the future of our company. 

See “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks to our business relating to the uncertain future of our company, including how 

the uncertain future of our company may adversely affect our ability to retain and recruit well-qualified employees, including 

our Chief Executive Officer and senior management.

Conservator Developments

FHFA has taken a number of steps as conservator to further the reform of the housing finance system. FHFA’s current 

strategic goals for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s conservatorships are to: 

• Maintain, in a safe and sound manner, credit availability and foreclosure prevention activities for new and 

refinanced mortgages to foster liquid, efficient, competitive and resilient national housing finance markets.

• Reduce taxpayer risk through increasing the role of private capital in the mortgage market.
32

• Build a new single-family infrastructure for use by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and adaptable for use by other 

participants in the secondary market in the future.

Beginning in 2012, FHFA has released annual corporate performance objectives for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, referred to 

as the conservatorship scorecard, which detail specific priorities for implementing FHFA’s strategic goals. FHFA released its 

2015 conservatorship scorecard in January 2015 and its 2016 conservatorship scorecard in December 2015.

Both FHFA’s 2015 and 2016 conservatorship scorecards include objectives relating to the development of a common 

securitization platform that can be used to perform certain aspects of the securitization process and the development of a 

single mortgage-backed security for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. FHFA’s 2016 conservatorship scorecard states that the 

common securitization platform and single security are significant multi-year initiatives and FHFA expects these inter-related 

projects to remain ongoing conservatorship priorities. The 2016 conservatorship scorecard states that FHFA expects both 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to implement the single security on the common securitization platform in 2018. More 

information on each of these initiatives is provided below.

Common Securitization Platform. In October 2013, at the direction of our conservator, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac 

established Common Securitization Solutions, LLC, a jointly owned limited liability company formed to design, develop, 

build and ultimately operate a common securitization platform. The intended purpose of the common securitization platform 

is to replace certain elements of Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s respective proprietary systems for securitizing mortgages 

and performing associated back office and administrative functions. In addition, FHFA’s 2015 and 2016 conservatorship 

scorecards specify that the design of the common securitization platform should allow for the integration of additional market 

participants in the future. 

In 2014, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executed three agreements relating to the governance and operation of CSS, and 

appointed a chief executive officer and four members of the CSS Board of Managers, two each from Fannie Mae and Freddie 

Mac. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac currently provide administrative support services, funding and other resources to CSS. 

CSS is implementing key corporate processes to enable it to eventually operate as a separate company. 

We continue to work with FHFA, Freddie Mac and CSS on building and testing the common securitization platform, as well 

as on implementing required changes to our systems and operations to integrate with the common securitization platform. In 

July 2015, we, Freddie Mac and CSS announced the creation of an industry advisory group to provide feedback and share 

information on efforts to build the common securitization platform and implement the single security. In September 2015, 

FHFA issued “An Update on the Common Securitization Platform,” which provided details on the progress made in 

developing the platform. 

Single GSE Security. FHFA’s 2014 Strategic Plan for the Conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac includes the goal 

of developing a single mortgage-backed security for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In August 2014, FHFA published a 

request for public input on a proposed structure for this single security. After reviewing and considering the responses 

received, FHFA issued an update on the structure of the single security in May 2015 that outlined its determinations regarding 

the key features of the single security structure and requested further feedback on its determinations. FHFA’s determinations 

included the following: 

• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will each issue and guarantee single securities directly backed by mortgage loans it 

has acquired, referred to as first-level securities, and will not cross-guarantee each other’s first-level securities;

• mortgage loans backing first-level single securities will be limited to fixed-rate mortgage loans now eligible for 

financing through the “To-Be-Announced” (“TBA”) market;

• Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will each be able to issue second-level single securities, also referred to as 

resecuritizations, backed by first- or second-level securities issued by either company;

• the key features of the new single security will be the same as those of the current Fannie Mae MBS;

• the loan- and security-level disclosures for single securities will closely resemble those of Freddie Mac participation 

certificates (“PCs”); and

• investors in Freddie Mac PCs will have the option to exchange legacy PCs for comparable single securities backed 

by the same mortgage loans; there will not be an exchange option for legacy Fannie Mae MBS because FHFA

expects investors to treat them as fungible with the single securities.

In 2015, we, FHFA and Freddie Mac developed a plan to implement the single security and worked on a variety of issues 

relating to the implementation of the single security, including accounting matters, communication planning, industry 

outreach, risk assessments, privacy matters, legal and contractual issues, and disclosures.
33

One of FHFA’s stated objectives in developing a single security is to reduce the costs to Freddie Mac and taxpayers that result 

from the difference in liquidity of Fannie Mae MBS and Freddie Mac PCs. We believe the implementation of a single 

security would likely reduce, and could eliminate, the trading advantage that Fannie Mae MBS have over Freddie Mac PCs. 

If this occurs, it could adversely affect our financial results. See “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks to our business 

associated with a single security for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

For more information on FHFA’s 2015 conservatorship scorecard objectives and our performance in meeting these objectives, 

see “Executive Compensation—Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Determination of 2015 Compensation—

Assessment of Corporate Performance on 2015 Conservatorship Scorecard.” For more information on FHFA’s 2016 

conservatorship scorecard objectives, see our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December 17, 2015.

OUR CHARTER AND REGULATION OF OUR ACTIVITIES

Charter Act 

Fannie Mae is a shareholder-owned corporation organized and existing under the Federal National Mortgage Association 

Charter Act, which we refer to as the Charter Act or our charter. The Charter Act sets forth the activities that we are permitted 

to conduct, authorizes us to issue debt and equity securities, and describes our general corporate powers. The Charter Act also 

defines our mission of providing liquidity, increasing stability and promoting affordability in the residential mortgage market. 

Specifically, the Charter Act states that our purposes are to:

• provide stability in the secondary market for residential mortgages;

• respond appropriately to the private capital market;

• provide ongoing assistance to the secondary market for residential mortgages (including activities relating to mortgages 

on housing for low- and moderate-income families involving a reasonable economic return that may be less than the 

return earned on other activities) by increasing the liquidity of mortgage investments and improving the distribution of 

investment capital available for residential mortgage financing; and

• promote access to mortgage credit throughout the nation (including central cities, rural areas and underserved areas) by 

increasing the liquidity of mortgage investments and improving the distribution of investment capital available for 

residential mortgage financing.

Loan Standards 

Our charter permits us to purchase and securitize mortgage loans secured by either a single-family or multifamily property. 

Mortgage loans we purchase or securitize must meet the following standards required by the Charter Act. 

• Principal Balance Limitations. Single-family conventional mortgage loans that we purchase or securitize are subject to 

maximum original principal balance limits, known as “conforming loan limits.” The conforming loan limits are 

established each year based on the average prices of one-family residences. Since 2006, the national conforming loan 

limit for mortgages that finance one-family residences has been set at $417,000, with higher limits for mortgages 

secured by two- to four-family residences and in four statutorily-designated states and territories (Alaska, Hawaii, 

Guam and the U.S. Virgin Islands). Higher loan limits also apply in designated high-cost areas (counties or countyequivalent areas). FHFA provides Fannie Mae with the designated high-cost areas annually. Our charter sets loan limits 

for high-cost areas up to 150% of the national loan limit ($625,500 for a one-family residence; higher for two- to fourfamily residences and in the four statutorily-designated states and territories). 

The Charter Act does not impose maximum original principal balance limits on loans we purchase or securitize that are 

insured by FHA or guaranteed by the VA or on multifamily mortgage loans that we purchase or securitize.

• Loan-to-Value and Credit Enhancement Requirements. The Charter Act generally requires credit enhancement on any 

single-family conventional mortgage loan that we purchase or securitize that has an LTV ratio over 80% at the time of 

purchase. Although we do not currently purchase or securitize second lien single-family mortgage loans, the Charter 

Act requires a second lien mortgage loan to have credit enhancement if the combined LTV ratio exceeds 80%. The 

credit enhancement required by our charter may take the form of one or more of the following: (1) insurance or a 

guaranty by a qualified insurer on the portion of the unpaid principal balance of the mortgage that exceeds 80%; (2) a 

seller’s agreement to repurchase or replace the mortgage in the event of default; or (3) retention by the seller of at least 

a 10% participation interest in the mortgage. Regardless of LTV ratio, the Charter Act does not require us to obtain 

credit enhancement to purchase or securitize loans insured by FHA or guaranteed by the VA. In addition, under HARP

and in accordance with FHFA direction, we allow our borrowers who have mortgage loans that have note dates prior to 
34

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.

Other Charter Act Provisions 

The Charter Act has the following additional provisions.

• Issuances of Our Securities. We are authorized, upon the approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to issue debt 

obligations and mortgage-related securities. Neither the U.S. government nor any of its agencies guarantees, directly 

or indirectly, our debt or mortgage-related securities.

• Authority of Treasury to Purchase Our Securities. At the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, Treasury may 

purchase our obligations up to a maximum of $2.25 billion outstanding at any one time. 

• Exemptions for Our Securities. The Charter Act generally provides that our securities are exempt under the federal 

securities laws administered by the SEC. As a result, we are not required to file registration statements with the SEC 

under the Securities Act of 1933 with respect to offerings of any of our securities. Our non-equity securities are also 

exempt securities under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). However, our equity securities 

are not treated as exempt securities for purposes of Sections 12, 13, 14 or 16 of the Exchange Act. Consequently, we 

are required to file periodic and current reports with the SEC, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly 

reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K.

• Exemption from Specified Taxes. Fannie Mae is exempt from taxation by states, territories, counties, municipalities 

and local taxing authorities, except for taxation by those authorities on our real property. We are not exempt from the 

payment of federal corporate income taxes.

• Limitations. We may not originate mortgage loans or advance funds to a mortgage seller on an interim basis, using 

mortgage loans as collateral, pending the sale of the mortgages in the secondary market. In addition, we may only 

purchase or securitize mortgages on properties located in the United States and its territories.

The GSE Act

As a federally chartered corporation, we are subject to government regulation and oversight. FHFA is an independent agency 

of the federal government with general supervisory and regulatory authority over Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 12 

Federal Home Loan Banks (“FHLBs”). FHFA was established in July 2008, assuming the duties of our former safety and 

soundness regulator, the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, and our former mission regulator, HUD. HUD 

remains our regulator with respect to fair lending matters. Our regulators also include the SEC and Treasury.

The GSE Act provides FHFA with safety and soundness authority that is comparable to and in some respects broader than 

that of the federal banking agencies. Even if we were not in conservatorship, the GSE Act gives FHFA the authority to raise 

capital levels above statutory minimum levels, regulate the size and content of our portfolio and approve new mortgage 

products, among other things.

Capital. The GSE Act provides FHFA with broad authority to increase the level of our required minimum capital and to 

establish capital or reserve requirements for specific products and activities. FHFA also has broad authority to establish riskbased capital requirements, to ensure that we operate in a safe and sound manner and maintain sufficient capital and reserves. 

During the conservatorship, FHFA has suspended our capital classifications. We continue to submit capital reports to FHFA

and FHFA monitors our capital levels. We describe our capital requirements below under “Capital Adequacy Requirements.”

Portfolio. The GSE Act requires FHFA to establish standards governing our portfolio holdings, to ensure that they are backed 

by sufficient capital and consistent with our mission and safe and sound operations. FHFA is also required to monitor our 

portfolio and, in some circumstances, may require us to dispose of or acquire assets. In 2010, FHFA adopted, as the standard 

for our portfolio holdings, the portfolio limits specified in the senior preferred stock purchase agreement described under 

“Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements—Treasury Agreements—Covenants under Treasury Agreements,” as it may be 

amended from time to time. The rule is effective for as long as we remain subject to the terms and obligations of the senior 

preferred stock purchase agreement.

New Products and Activities. The GSE Act requires us to request FHFA’s approval before initially offering any new product, 

subject to certain exceptions. The GSE Act also requires us to provide FHFA with written notice before commencing any new 

activity. In July 2009, FHFA published an interim final rule implementing these provisions of the GSE Act. Subsequently, the 

then-Acting Director of FHFA concluded that permitting us to engage in new products was inconsistent with the goals of the 

conservatorship. FHFA therefore instructed us not to submit new product requests under the rule. In December 2015, FHFA

stated in the preamble to its proposed rule on the duty to serve underserved markets that we may propose a new product or 
35

activity for FHFA’s consideration if we determine that it would facilitate our duty to serve obligations and would be 

consistent with safety and soundness. 

Receivership. Under the GSE Act, FHFA must place us into receivership if it determines that our assets are less than our 

obligations for 60 days, or we have not been paying our debts as they become due for 60 days. FHFA has notified us that the 

measurement period for any mandatory receivership determination with respect to our assets and liabilities would commence 

no earlier than the SEC public filing deadline for our quarterly or annual financial statements and would continue for 60 

calendar days thereafter. FHFA has advised us that if, during that 60-day period, we receive funds from Treasury in an 

amount at least equal to the deficiency amount under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, the Director of FHFA

will not make a mandatory receivership determination.

In addition, we could be put into receivership at the discretion of the Director of FHFA at any time for other reasons set forth 

in the GSE Act. The statutory grounds for discretionary appointment of a receiver include: a substantial dissipation of assets 

or earnings due to unsafe or unsound practices; the existence of an unsafe or unsound condition to transact business; an 

inability to meet our obligations in the ordinary course of business; a weakening of our condition due to unsafe or unsound 

practices or conditions; critical undercapitalization; undercapitalization and no reasonable prospect of becoming adequately 

capitalized; the likelihood of losses that will deplete substantially all of our capital; or by consent.

FHFA’s final rule on conservatorship and receivership operations for the GSEs, which became effective in July 2011, 

implements and supplements the procedures and processes set forth in the GSE Act. For example, the final rule clarifies that:

• the powers of the conservator or receiver include continuing our mission and ensuring that our operations foster 

liquid, efficient, competitive and resilient national housing finance markets;

• we are prohibited from making capital distributions while in conservatorship unless authorized by the Director of 

FHFA; and

• claims by current or former shareholders (including securities litigation claims) would receive the lowest priority in 

a receivership.

The rule also provides that FHFA, as conservator, will not pay securities litigation claims against us during conservatorship, 

unless the Director of FHFA determines it to be in the interest of the conservatorship. 

Prudential Management and Operations Standards. As required by the GSE Act, in June 2012, FHFA published a final rule 

establishing prudential standards relating to the management and operations of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the FHLBs in 

ten areas: (1) internal controls and information systems; (2) independence and adequacy of internal audit systems; 

(3) management of market risk exposure; (4) management of market risk—measurement systems, risk limits, stress testing, 

and monitoring and reporting; (5) adequacy and maintenance of liquidity and reserves; (6) management of asset and 

investment portfolio growth; (7) investments and acquisitions of assets; (8) overall risk management processes; 

(9) management of credit and counterparty risk; and (10) maintenance of adequate records. The rule also includes provisions 

addressing the general responsibilities of boards of directors and senior management. In November 2015, FHFA amended 

these provisions and designated them as an additional prudential standard in order to clarify that they have the same effect 

and can be enforced in the same manner as the ten enumerated standards.

Affordable Housing Goals and Duty to Serve. We discuss our affordable housing goals and our duty to serve underserved 

markets below under “Housing Goals and Duty to Serve Underserved Markets.”

Affordable Housing Allocations. The GSE Act requires us to set aside in each fiscal 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 HUD 

and Treasury funds. FHFA suspended this requirement in November 2008 and directed us to not set aside or allocate funds 

until further notice. In December 2014, FHFA terminated this suspension and directed us to begin making contributions to the 

funds. FHFA’s directive reinstating these contributions requires us to set aside amounts during each fiscal year beginning in 

fiscal year 2015, and to allocate or otherwise transfer the amounts set aside within 60 days after the end of each fiscal year, 

unless during such fiscal year we have made a draw from Treasury under the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase 

agreement or unless such allocation or transfer would cause us to have to make a draw from Treasury under the agreement, in 

which case we will make no allocation or transfer for that year and the amounts set aside for that year will be reversed. We 

are prohibited from redirecting or passing through the cost of these allocations to originators of mortgages that we purchase 

or securitize. Pursuant to FHFA’s directive, we expect to make our first payment of $217 million to the funds on or before 

February 29, 2016, based on the amount of our new business purchases in 2015. 

Executive Compensation. Fannie Mae’s Charter provides that the company has the power to pay compensation to our 

executives that the Board of Directors determines is reasonable and comparable with the compensation of executives 

performing similar duties in similar businesses, except that a significant portion of potential compensation must be based on 
36

our performance. The GSE Act directs FHFA to prohibit us from providing unreasonable or non-comparable compensation to 

our executive officers. FHFA may at any time review the reasonableness and comparability of an executive officer’s 

compensation and may require us to withhold any payment to the officer during such review. In addition, pursuant to the Stop 

Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act (the “STOCK Act”) and related regulations issued by FHFA, our senior executives 

are prohibited from receiving bonuses during any period of conservatorship on or after April 4, 2012. 

FHFA is authorized by the GSE Act to prohibit or limit certain golden parachute and indemnification payments to directors, 

officers and certain other parties. FHFA regulation requires the approval of the Director of FHFA before we may enter into 

any agreement providing compensation in connection with the termination of an executive officer’s employment. FHFA

regulation also generally prohibits us from making golden parachute payments to any current or former director, officer, 

employee, controlling stockholder or agent of the company during any period in which we are in conservatorship, 

receivership or other troubled condition unless either a specific exception applies or the Director of FHFA approves the 

payments. 

In November 2015, the Equity in Government Compensation Act of 2015 was enacted. This law directs the Director of FHFA

to suspend the compensation packages approved for 2015 for Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s chief executive officers and, 

in lieu of such packages, to establish the compensation and benefits that were in effect for such officers as of January 1, 2015. 

The law also provides that these officers’ compensation and benefits may not thereafter be increased and these restrictions on 

chief executive officer compensation are applicable as long as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are in conservatorship or 

receivership. In accordance with this law, on December 1, 2015, the Director of FHFA directed Fannie Mae to decrease the 

total target annual direct compensation of our chief executive officer to $600,000, effective November 25, 2015. For more 

information on our executive compensation program and regulatory and other legal requirements affecting our executive 

compensation, see “Executive Compensation.” 

Fair Lending. The GSE Act requires the Secretary of HUD to assure that the GSEs meet their fair lending 

obligations. Among other things, HUD periodically reviews and comments on our underwriting and appraisal guidelines to 

ensure consistency with the Fair Housing Act. 

Capital Adequacy Requirements 

The GSE Act establishes capital adequacy requirements. The statutory capital framework incorporates two different 

quantitative assessments of capital—a minimum capital requirement and a risk-based capital requirement. The minimum 

capital requirement is ratio-based, while the risk-based capital requirement is based on simulated stress test performance. The 

GSE Act requires us to maintain sufficient capital to meet both of these requirements in order to be classified as “adequately 

capitalized.” However, during the conservatorship, FHFA has suspended our capital classifications and announced that our 

existing statutory and FHFA-directed regulatory capital requirements will not be binding. FHFA has advised us that, because 

we are under conservatorship, we will not be subject to corrective action requirements that would ordinarily result from our 

receiving a capital classification of “undercapitalized.”

Minimum Capital. Under the GSE Act, we are required to maintain an amount of core capital that equals or exceeds our 

minimum capital requirement. The GSE Act defines core capital as the sum of the stated value of outstanding common stock 

(common stock less treasury stock), the stated value of outstanding non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, paid-in capital, 

and retained earnings, as determined in accordance with GAAP. Our minimum capital requirement is generally equal to the 

sum of 2.50% of on-balance sheet assets and 0.45% of off-balance sheet obligations. For purposes of minimum capital, FHFA

has directed us to continue reporting loans backing Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties based on 0.45% of the unpaid 

principal balance regardless of whether these loans have been consolidated pursuant to accounting rules. FHFA retains 

authority under the GSE Act to raise the minimum capital requirement for any of our assets or activities.

Risk-Based Capital. The GSE Act requires FHFA to establish risk-based capital requirements for Fannie Mae and Freddie 

Mac, to ensure that we operate in a safe and sound manner. Existing risk-based capital regulation under the GSE Act ties our 

capital requirements to the risk in our book of business, as measured by a stress test model. The stress test simulates our 

financial performance over a ten-year period of severe economic conditions characterized by both extreme interest rate 

movements and high mortgage default rates. FHFA has stated that it does not intend to publish our risk-based capital level 

during the conservatorship and has discontinued stress test simulations under the existing rule. We continue to submit detailed 

profiles of our books of business to FHFA to support FHFA’s monitoring of our business activity and their research into 

future risk-based capital rules. In addition, as described under “The Dodd-Frank Act—Stress Testing” below, we submit 

stress test simulations to FHFA pursuant to regulations FHFA implemented under the Dodd-Frank Act.

Critical Capital. The GSE Act also establishes a critical capital requirement, which is the amount of core capital below which 

we would be classified as “critically undercapitalized.” Under the GSE Act, such classification is a discretionary ground for 

appointing a conservator or receiver. Our critical capital requirement is generally equal to the sum of 1.25% of on-balance 
37

sheet assets and 0.25% of off-balance sheet obligations. FHFA has directed us, for purposes of critical capital, to continue 

reporting loans backing Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties based on 0.25% of the unpaid principal balance, 

notwithstanding our consolidation of substantially all of the loans backing these securities. FHFA has stated that it does not 

intend to publish our critical capital level during the conservatorship.

Housing Goals and Duty to Serve Underserved Markets

We describe below our housing goals that were in place for 2012 to 2014, our performance against those goals in 2014, as 

well as our new housing goals for 2015 to 2017. We also discuss our duty to serve specified underserved markets. 

Housing Goals for 2012 to 2014

In November 2012, FHFA published a final rule establishing the following single-family home purchase and refinance 

housing goal benchmarks for 2012 to 2014 for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A home purchase mortgage may be counted 

toward more than one home purchase benchmark.

• Low-Income Families Home Purchase Benchmark: At least 23% of our acquisitions of single-family owneroccupied purchase money mortgage loans were required to be affordable to low-income families (defined as income 

equal to or less than 80% of area median income).

• Very Low-Income Families Home Purchase Benchmark: At least 7% of our acquisitions of single-family owneroccupied purchase money mortgage loans were required to be affordable to very low-income families (defined as 

income equal to or less than 50% of area median income).

• Low-Income Areas Home Purchase Goal Benchmark: The benchmark level for our acquisitions of single-family 

owner-occupied purchase money mortgage loans for families in low-income areas was set annually by notice from 

FHFA, based on the benchmark level for the low-income areas home purchase subgoal (below), plus an adjustment 

factor reflecting the additional incremental share of mortgages for moderate-income families (defined as income 

equal to or less than 100% of area median income) in designated disaster areas. For 2014, FHFA set the overall lowincome areas home purchase benchmark goal at 18%.

• Low-Income Areas Home Purchase Subgoal Benchmark: At least 11% of our acquisitions of single-family owneroccupied purchase money mortgage loans were required to be affordable to families in low-income census tracts or 

to moderate-income families in high-minority census tracts.

• Low-Income Families Refinancing Benchmark: At least 20% of our acquisitions of single-family owner-occupied 

refinance mortgage loans were required to be affordable to low-income families.

If we did not meet these benchmarks, we could still meet our goals. Our single-family housing goals performance was 

measured against benchmarks and against goals-qualifying originations in the primary mortgage market after the release of 

data reported under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (“HMDA”), which is typically released each year in the fall. We 

would be in compliance with the housing goals if we met either the benchmarks or market share measures.

To meet FHFA’s multifamily housing goals for 2012 to 2014, our multifamily business was required to finance a certain 

number of units affordable to low-income families and a certain number of units affordable to very low-income families. The 

specific requirements for each year are set forth in Table 5 below. There was no market-based alternative measurement for the 

multifamily goals.

Table 5: Multifamily Housing Goals for 2012 to 2014

Goals for

2012 2013 2014

(in units)

Affordable to low-income families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 285,000 265,000 250,000

Affordable to very low-income families. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80,000 70,000 60,000

In December 2015, FHFA determined that we met all of our single-family and multifamily housing goals for 2014. Table 6

displays our performance for 2014 against our single-family housing benchmarks and market share measures, as well as our 

multifamily housing goals, as validated by FHFA. 
38

Table 6: 2014 Housing Goals Performance 

2014

Result

BenchmarkSingle-Family

Market Level

Single-family housing goals:(1)

Low-income families home purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23.5 % 23 % 22.8 %

Very low-income families home purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.7 7 5.7

Low-income areas home purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22.7 18 22.1

Low-income and high-minority areas home purchases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15.5 11 15.0

Low-income families refinancing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26.5 20 25.1

2014

Result Goal

(in units)

Multifamily housing goals:

Affordable to families with income no higher than 80% of area median income . . . . . . . . . . . . 262,050 250,000

Affordable to families with income no higher than 50% of area median income . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,542 60,000

__________

(1) Our single-family results and benchmarks are expressed as a percentage of the total number of eligible mortgages acquired during the 

period.

Housing Goals for 2015 to 2017

In September 2015, FHFA published a final rule establishing single-family and multifamily housing goals for Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac for 2015 to 2017. 

Single-Family Housing Goals

FHFA adopted the following single-family home purchase and refinance housing goal benchmarks for 2015 to 2017. A home 

purchase mortgage may be counted toward more than one home purchase benchmark.

• Low-Income Families Home Purchase Benchmark: At least 24% of our acquisitions of single-family owneroccupied purchase money mortgage loans must be affordable to low-income families (defined as income equal to or 

less than 80% of area median income). This is an increase from the 23% benchmark that applied for 2014.

• Very Low-Income Families Home Purchase Benchmark: At least 6% of our acquisitions of single-family owneroccupied purchase money mortgage loans must be affordable to very low-income families (defined as income equal 

to or less than 50% of area median income). This is a decrease from the 7% benchmark that applied for 2014.

• Low-Income Areas Home Purchase Goal Benchmark: The benchmark level for our acquisitions of single-family 

owner-occupied purchase money mortgage loans for families in low-income areas is set annually by notice from 

FHFA, based on the benchmark level for the low-income areas home purchase subgoal (below), plus an adjustment 

factor reflecting the additional incremental share of mortgages for moderate-income families (defined as income 

equal to or less than 100% of area median income) in designated disaster areas. For 2015, FHFA set the overall lowincome areas home purchase benchmark goal at 19%. This is an increase from the 18% benchmark that applied for 

2014.

• Low-Income Areas Home Purchase Subgoal Benchmark: At least 14% of our acquisitions of single-family owneroccupied purchase money mortgage loans must be affordable to families in low-income census tracts or to moderateincome families in high-minority census tracts. This is an increase from the benchmark of 11% that applied for 

2014.

• Low-Income Families Refinancing Benchmark: At least 21% of our acquisitions of single-family owner-occupied 

refinance mortgage loans must be affordable to low-income families. This is an increase from the benchmark of 20% 

that applied for 2014. 

Under the rule, not all of our single-family loan acquisitions that fall within these categories may be counted towards our 

housing goals. Certain types of loan acquisitions are excluded, such as single-family government loans and loans for singlefamily rental properties. In addition, only permanent modifications of mortgages under the Administration’s Home 
39

Affordable Modification Program (“HAMP®”) completed during the year count towards our housing goals; trial 

modifications are not counted. Moreover, these modifications count only towards our single-family low-income families 

refinance goal, not any of the home purchase goals. Refinancings under HARP also count toward our single-family lowincome families refinancing goal.

If we do not meet these benchmarks, we may still meet our goals. Our single-family housing goals performance is measured 

against both these benchmarks and against goals-qualifying originations in the primary mortgage market after the release of 

HMDA data, which is typically released each year in the fall. We will be in compliance with the housing goals if we meet 

either the benchmarks or market share measures.

Multifamily Housing Goals

FHFA’s final rule also includes a multifamily special affordable housing goal and subgoal, and establishes a new subgoal for 

small multifamily properties (defined as those with 5 to 50 units) affordable to low-income families. FHFA’s annual 

multifamily goals and subgoals for 2015 to 2017 are as follows:

• Low-Income Families Goal: At least 300,000 multifamily units per year must be affordable to low-income families. 

This is an increase from the goal of 250,000 units that applied for 2014. 

• Very Low-Income Families Subgoal: At least 60,000 multifamily units per year must be affordable to very lowincome families. This is the same subgoal that applied for 2014.

• Small Affordable Multifamily Properties Subgoal: FHFA established a new subgoal for purchases of mortgages on 

small multifamily properties affordable to low-income families. The subgoal increases each year: 6,000 units in 

2015; 8,000 units in 2016; and 10,000 units in 2017. 

There is no market-based alternative measurement for the multifamily goal or subgoals.

We will report our performance with respect to the 2015 housing goals in March 2016. FHFA will issue a final determination 

on our performance after the release of data reported under HMDA later this year.

If we do not meet our housing goals, FHFA determines whether the goals were feasible. If FHFA finds that our 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. 

Duty to Serve

The 2008 Reform Act created the duty to serve underserved markets in order for us and Freddie Mac to “provide leadership 

to the market in developing loan products and flexible underwriting guidelines to facilitate a secondary market for very low-, 

low-, and moderate-income families” in three underserved markets: manufactured housing, affordable housing preservation 

and rural areas.

In December 2015, FHFA published a proposed rule to implement our duty to serve. Under the proposed rule, each of Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac would be required to adopt an underserved markets plan covering a three-year period that sets forth the 

activities and objectives we will undertake to meet our duty to serve the specified underserved markets. The development of 

these plans would be subject to a public notice and comment process and the plans would require FHFA’s approval before 

being adopted. For the manufactured housing market, duty to serve credit would be provided for eligible activities relating to 

manufactured homes financed as real property and blanket loans for specified categories of manufactured housing 

communities. For the affordable housing preservation market, duty to serve credit would be provided for eligible activities 

relating to preserving the affordability of housing for renters and buyers under specified programs enumerated in the GSE Act 

and other comparable affordable housing programs administered by state and local governments, subject to FHFA approval. 

Duty to serve credit would also be provided for activities related to existing small (5 to 50 units) multifamily rental 

properties, energy efficiency improvements on existing multifamily rental and single-family first lien properties, certain 

shared equity homeownership programs and HUD’s Choice Neighborhoods Initiative and Rental Assistance Demonstration 

program. For the rural market, duty to serve credit would be provided for eligible activities related to housing in rural areas, 

including activities serving specified high-needs rural regions and populations. FHFA could also approve duty to serve credit 

for additional activities identified in our underserved markets plan. Qualifying activities that promote residential economic 

diversity in one or more underserved markets would also receive duty to serve credit. Under the proposed rule, FHFA would 

evaluate and rate our performance under our underserved markets plan on an annual basis, and report the results to Congress. 

If FHFA determines that we failed to meet the requirements of our underserved markets plan and that it was feasible to do so, 

it may result in the imposition of a housing plan.
40

As described in “Risk Factors,” actions we may take to meet our housing goals and duty to serve requirements may increase 

our credit losses and credit-related expense.

The Dodd-Frank Act

The Dodd-Frank Act has significantly changed the regulation of the financial services industry, including requiring new 

standards related to regulatory oversight of systemically important nonbank financial companies, derivatives transactions, 

asset-backed securitization, mortgage underwriting and consumer financial protection. The Dodd-Frank Act has directly 

affected and will continue to affect our business through new and expanded regulatory oversight and standards applicable to 

us. We are also indirectly affected by provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act and implementing regulations that impact the 

activities of our customers and counterparties in the financial services industry. We discuss the potential risks to our business 

resulting from the Dodd-Frank Act in “Risk Factors.” Below we summarize some key provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act, as 

well as some rules that have been promulgated by various government agencies to implement provisions of the legislation. 

Enhanced supervision and prudential standards. The Dodd-Frank Act established the Financial Stability Oversight Council 

(the “FSOC”), chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, to ensure that all financial companies—not just banks—whose failure 

could pose a threat to the financial stability of the United States will be subject to strong oversight. Under the Dodd-Frank 

Act, the FSOC is responsible for designating systemically important nonbank financial companies, while the Federal Reserve 

Board of Governors is responsible for establishing enhanced prudential standards that will apply to FSOC-designated 

systemically important nonbank financial companies, as well as to large bank holding companies. Depending on the scope 

and final form of the Federal Reserve Board’s enhanced standards, and the extent to which they apply to us if we are 

designated as a systemically important nonbank financial company, or to our customers and other counterparties, their 

adoption and application could increase our costs, pose operational challenges and adversely affect demand for Fannie Mae 

debt and MBS. To date, we have received no notification of possible designation as a systemically important nonbank 

financial company.

Swap Transactions; Minimum Capital and Margin Requirements. The Dodd-Frank Act includes provisions requiring 

additional regulation of swap transactions. Because we are a user of interest rate swaps, the Dodd-Frank Act requires us, 

among other items, to submit new swap transactions for clearing to a derivatives clearing organization. Additionally, in 

October 2015, the Federal Reserve Board, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (“FDIC”), FHFA, the Farm Credit 

Administration and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a new final rule under the Dodd-Frank Act 

governing margin and capital requirements applicable to entities that are subject to their oversight. As this rule is phased in, it 

will require that, for trades that have not been submitted to a derivatives clearing organization, we collect from and provide to 

our counterparties collateral in excess of the amounts we have historically collected or provided relative to our level of 

activity. 

Ability to Repay. The Dodd-Frank Act amended the Truth in Lending Act (“TILA”) to require creditors to determine that 

borrowers have a “reasonable ability to repay” most mortgage loans prior to making such loans. In 2013, the Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau (the “CFPB”) issued a final rule under Regulation Z that, among others things, requires creditors 

to determine a borrower’s “ability to repay” a mortgage loan. If a creditor fails to comply, a borrower may be able to offset a 

portion of the amount owed in a foreclosure proceeding or recoup monetary damages. The rule offers several options for 

complying with the ability to repay requirement, including making loans that meet certain terms and characteristics (so-called 

“qualified mortgages”), which may provide creditors and their assignees with special protection from liability. Generally, a 

loan will be a qualified mortgage under the rule if, among other things, (1) the points and fees paid in connection with the 

loan do not exceed 3% of the total loan amount, (2) the loan term does not exceed 30 years, (3) the loan is fully amortizing 

with no negative amortization, interest-only or balloon features and (4) the debt-to-income ratio on the loan does not exceed 

43% at origination. The CFPB also defined a special class of conventional mortgage loans that will be qualified mortgages if 

they (1) meet the points and fees, term and amortization requirements of qualified mortgages generally and (2) are eligible for 

sale to Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac. This class of qualified mortgages expires on the earlier of January 10, 2021 or when the 

GSEs cease to be in conservatorship or receivership. 

In May 2013, FHFA directed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to limit our acquisition of single-family loans to those loans that 

meet the points and fees, term and amortization requirements for qualified mortgages, or to loans that are exempt from the 

ability-to-repay rule, such as loans made to investors. This limitation applies to loans with application dates on or after 

January 10, 2014, the effective date of the ability-to-repay rule. We continue to evaluate the potential impact of these changes 

on our business.

Risk Retention. The Dodd-Frank Act requires financial regulators to jointly prescribe regulations requiring securitizers to 

retain a portion of the credit risk in assets transferred, sold or conveyed through the issuance of asset-backed securities, with 

certain exceptions. In October 2014, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Board of Governors of the Federal 
41

Reserve System, the FDIC, the SEC, FHFA and HUD issued a final rule implementing this credit risk retention 

requirement. The final rule generally requires securitizers to retain at least 5% of the credit risk of the assets they 

securitize. The rule offers several compliance options, one of which is to have either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac (so long as 

they are in conservatorship or receivership) securitize and fully guarantee the assets, in which case no further retention of 

credit risk is required. In addition, securities backed solely by mortgage loans meeting the definition of a “qualified 

residential mortgage” are exempt from the risk retention requirements of the rule. The rule defines “qualified residential 

mortgage” to have the same meaning as the term “qualified mortgage” as defined by the CFPB in connection with its “ability 

to repay” rule under Regulation Z discussed above. The final risk retention rule became effective on December 24, 2015 for 

single-family mortgage loans and will become effective on December 24, 2016 for multifamily mortgage loans. We do not 

expect any significant changes in our current business practices as a result of the risk retention rule.

TILA-RESPA Integrated Disclosure (“TRID”). The Dodd-Frank Act required the CFPB to streamline and simplify the 

disclosures required under TILA and the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (“RESPA”). In October 2015, the CFPB’s 

final rule implementing these changes went into effect. Although this rule applies to mortgage originators and is not directly 

applicable to us, we could face potential liability for certain errors in the new required disclosures in connection with the 

loans we acquire from lenders. At this time, it is not yet clear what sorts of errors will give rise to liability. Also in October 

2015, FHFA directed us and Freddie Mac not to conduct post-purchase loan file reviews for technical compliance with 

TRID. Consistent with FHFA’s directive, we currently do not intend to exercise our contractual remedies, including requiring 

the lender to repurchase the loan, for noncompliance with the newly applicable provisions of TRID, except in two limited 

circumstances: if the required form is not used; or if a particular practice would impair enforcement of the note or mortgage 

or would result in assignee liability, and a court of law, regulator or other authoritative body has determined that such practice 

violates TRID. We continue to evaluate the potential impact of this rule on our business.

Stress Testing. The Dodd-Frank Act requires certain financial companies to conduct annual stress tests to determine whether 

the companies have the capital necessary to absorb losses as a result of adverse economic conditions. In September 2013, 

FHFA issued a final rule implementing the Dodd-Frank Act’s stress test requirements for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the 

FHLBs. Under the rule, each year we are required to conduct a stress test using three different scenarios of financial 

conditions provided by FHFA: baseline, adverse and severely adverse. In conducting the stress test, we are required to 

calculate the impact of the scenario conditions on our capital levels and other specified measures of financial condition and 

performance over a period of at least nine quarters. The rule requires us to submit the stress test results for the three scenarios 

to FHFA and the Federal Reserve Board of Governors, as well as to publish the stress test results for the severely adverse 

scenario by a later date. We submitted our most recent stress test results under this rule to FHFA and the Federal Reserve 

Board of Governors on February 5, 2015 and published our most recent stress test results for the severely adverse scenario on 

our website on April 30, 2015. 

In November 2015, FHFA amended this stress testing rule to change certain dates associated with the process. For Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac, FHFA’s amendment changed the following: the start date of the stress test cycles changed from 

October 1 to January 1; the date by which we are required to report our stress test results to FHFA and the Federal Reserve 

Board of Governors changed from February 5 to May 20; and the date by which we are required to publicly disclose a 

summary of the stress test results for the severely adverse scenario changed from between April 15 and April 30, to between 

August 1 and August 15. 

Bank Capital and Liquidity Standards

Although we are not subject to banking regulations, our business may be affected by changes to the capital and liquidity 

requirements applicable to U.S. banks. The capital and liquidity regimes for the U.S. banking industry are currently 

undergoing significant changes as a result of actions by international bank regulators. In December 2010, the Basel 

Committee on Banking Supervision issued a set of revisions to the international capital requirements. These revisions, known 

as Basel III, generally narrow the definition of capital that can be used to meet risk-based standards and raise the amount of 

capital that must be held. Basel III also introduces new quantitative liquidity requirements. In July 2013, U.S. banking 

regulators issued a final regulation implementing Basel III’s capital standards. In September 2014, U.S. banking regulators 

also issued a final regulation setting minimum liquidity standards for large U.S. banks generally in accordance with Basel III 

standards. See “Risk Factors” for a discussion of how changing regulations applicable to U.S. banks could materially 

adversely affect demand by banks for our debt and MBS securities in the future. 
42

OUR CUSTOMERS

Our principal customers are lenders that operate within the primary mortgage market where mortgage loans are originated 

and funds are loaned to borrowers. Our customers include mortgage banking companies, savings and loan associations, 

savings banks, commercial banks, credit unions, community banks, specialty servicers, insurance companies, and state and 

local housing finance agencies. Lenders originating mortgages in the primary mortgage market often sell them in the 

secondary mortgage market in the form of whole loans or in the form of mortgage-related securities.

We have a diversified funding base of domestic and international investors. Purchasers of Fannie Mae MBS or Fannie Mae 

debt securities include fund managers, commercial banks, pension funds, insurance companies, Treasury, foreign central 

banks, corporations, state and local governments, and other municipal authorities.

During 2015, approximately 1,200 lenders delivered single-family mortgage loans to us, either for securitization or for 

purchase. We acquire a significant portion of our single-family mortgage loans from several large mortgage lenders. During 

2015, our top five lender customers, in the aggregate, accounted for approximately 29% of our single-family business 

volume, down from approximately 33% in 2014. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., together with its affiliates, was the only customer 

that accounted for 10% or more of our single-family business volume in 2015, with approximately 13%.

A number of factors impacted our customers in 2015 and affected the volume of business and mix of customers with whom 

we and our competitors do business. We obtained a smaller portion of our single-family loan acquisitions from large 

mortgage lenders in the last several years than in prior years as a result of a reduction in the aggregation of third-party 

mortgage originations among large mortgage originators and other factors. At the same time, we sought and continue to seek 

to provide liquidity to a broader, more diverse set of mortgage lenders. In addition to the decrease in single-family mortgage 

seller concentration, in recent years, we have acquired a large portion of our business volume from non-depository sellers. 

Doing more business with a more diverse set of mortgage lenders has lowered to a degree the significant exposure 

concentration we have built up with a few large institutions. However, the potentially lower financial strength, liquidity and 

operational capacity of many of these smaller or non-depository mortgage sellers and servicers compared with larger, 

depository financial institutions may negatively affect their ability to satisfy their repurchase or compensatory fee obligations 

or to service the loans on our behalf. 

See “Risk Factors” for a discussion of risks relating to our institutional counterparties and our acquisition of a significant 

portion of our mortgage loans from several large mortgage lenders. 

COMPETITION

We compete to acquire mortgage assets in the secondary market. We also compete for the issuance of mortgage-related 

securities to investors. Competition in these areas is affected by many factors, including the number of residential mortgage 

loans offered for sale in the secondary market by loan originators and other market participants, the nature of the residential 

mortgage loans offered for sale (for example, whether the loans represent refinancings), the current demand for mortgage 

assets from mortgage investors, the interest rate risk investors are willing to assume and the yields they will require as a 

result, and the credit risk and prices associated with available mortgage investments.

Competition to acquire mortgage assets is significantly affected by both our and our competitors’ pricing and eligibility 

standards, as well as investor demand for our and our competitors’ mortgage-related securities. Our competitive environment 

also may be affected by many other factors, such as new legislation or regulations. See “Housing Finance Reform,” “Our 

Charter and Regulation of Our Activities” and “Risk Factors” for information on legislation and regulations that could affect 

our business and competitive environment. 

Our competitors for the acquisition of single-family mortgage assets are financial institutions and government agencies that 

manage residential mortgage credit risk or invest in residential mortgage loans, including Freddie Mac, FHA, the VA, Ginnie 

Mae (which primarily guarantees securities backed by FHA-insured loans and VA-guaranteed loans), the twelve FHLBs, U.S. 

banks and thrifts, securities dealers, insurance companies, pension funds, investment funds and other mortgage investors. Our 

primary competitors for the issuance of single-family mortgage-related securities are Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae, as many 

private market competitors dramatically reduced or ceased their activities in the single-family secondary mortgage market 

following the 2008 housing crisis. For the issuance of multifamily mortgage-related securities, we primarily compete with 

Freddie Mac, life insurers, U.S. banks and thrifts, other institutional investors, Ginnie Mae and private-label issuers of 

commercial mortgage-backed securities.
43

We estimate that our single-family market share was 28% in both 2015 and 2014. These amounts represent our single-family 

mortgage acquisitions for each year, excluding delinquent loans we purchased from our MBS trusts, as a percentage of the 

single-family first-lien mortgages we currently estimate were originated in the United States that year. Our estimate of 

mortgage originations in prior periods is subject to change as additional data become available; therefore, these market share 

estimates may change in the future, perhaps materially. 

We remained one of the largest issuers of mortgage-related securities in the secondary market in 2015. We estimate our 

market share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances was 37% in 2015, compared with 40% for 2014. Our 

market share for new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances decreased in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily as 

a result of competition from Ginnie Mae.

We also compete for low-cost debt funding with institutions that hold mortgage portfolios, including Freddie Mac and the 

FHLBs.

EMPLOYEES

As of January 31, 2016, we employed approximately 7,300 personnel, including full-time and part-time employees, term 

employees and employees on leave.

WHERE YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

We make available free of charge through our website our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, 

current reports on Form 8-K and all other SEC reports and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable 

after we electronically file the material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Our website address is www.fanniemae.com. Materials 

that we file with the SEC are also available from the SEC’s website, www.sec.gov. You may also request copies of any filing 

from us, at no cost, by calling the Fannie Mae Fixed-Income Securities Helpline at 1-888-BOND-HLP (1-888-266-3457) or 

1-202-752-7115 or by writing to Fannie Mae, Attention: Fixed-Income Securities, 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Area 2H-3N, 

Washington, DC 20016.

All references in this report to our website addresses or the website address of the SEC are provided solely for your 

information. Information appearing on our website or on the SEC’s website is not incorporated into this annual report on 

Form 10-K.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report includes statements that constitute forward-looking statements within the meaning of Section 21E of 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 for the first quarter of 2016 of $2.9 

billion by March 31, 2016;
44

• 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 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 the guaranty fee changes we implemented in September 2015 will not result in material 

changes to our single-family guaranty fee revenue or loan volume;

• Our expectations that the volume of loans we acquire with 95.01% to 97% LTV ratios under our revised eligibility 

criteria and HomeReady will increase, but that these loans will continue to constitute only a small portion of our 

acquisitions;

• Our expectation that our acquisition of 95.01% to 97% LTV ratio loans under our revised eligibility criteria and 

under HomeReady will not materially affect our overall credit risk because we expect that: (1) our eligibility 

requirements for these loans will limit their effect on our credit risk; and (2) these loans will constitute a small 

portion of our acquisitions; 

• 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 belief that Collateral Underwriter’s integration with Desktop Underwriter will enhance our lenders’ risk 

management and underwriting capabilities;

• Our expectation that our elimination of fees charged to customers for using Desktop Underwriter and Desktop 

Originator will allow more lenders to access these systems in their underwriting process;

• Our plans to implement additional enhancements to Desktop Underwriter in 2016 and our expectation that these 

enhancements will further help our lender customers originate mortgages with increased efficiency and lower costs 

and will help increase access to credit for creditworthy borrowers;

• FHFA’s expectation that single-family credit risk transfers will continue to be an ongoing conservatorship 

requirement;

• FHFA’s expectation that the common securitization platform and single security projects will remain ongoing 

conservatorship priorities;

• FHFA’s expectation that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac will implement the single security on the common 

securitization platform in 2018;

• FHFA’s expectation that investors will treat legacy Fannie Mae MBS as fungible with the single securities;

• FHFA’s expectation that, with the enhanced requirements FHFA announced in March 2015, nonperforming loan 

sales will result in more favorable outcomes for borrowers and local communities;

• Our plan to complete additional nonperforming loan sales;

• 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;
45

• Our expectation that increases in our guaranty fee revenues will partially offset the negative impact of the decline in 

our retained mortgage portfolio, and 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 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 belief that the implementation of a single security for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac would likely reduce, and 

could eliminate, the trading advantage Fannie Mae MBS have over Freddie Mac PCs and, if this occurs, it could 

adversely affect our financial results;

• 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 decrease from 2015 levels 

by approximately 11% from an estimated $1.69 trillion in 2015 to $1.51 trillion in 2016;

• Our forecast that the amount of originations in the U.S. single family mortgage market that are refinancings will 

decrease from an estimated $795 billion in 2015 to $558 billion in 2016; 

• Our expectation that the rate of home price appreciation in 2016 will be similar to 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 and future years than our 2015 credit losses, absent 

further significant redesignations or accounting policy changes;

• Our expectation that our loss reserves will decline further; 

• The estimate that there will be approximately 384,000 new multifamily units completed in 2016;

• Our belief that the increase in the supply of multifamily units concentrated in a limited number of metropolitan areas 

in 2016 will result in a temporary slowdown in net absorption rates, occupancy levels and effective rents in those 

areas throughout 2016;

• Our expectation that overall national rental market supply and demand will remain in balance over the longer term, 

based on expected construction completions, expected obsolescence and positive household formation trends;

• Our expectation that significant uncertainty regarding the future of our company will continue;

• Our expectation that Congress will continue to 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 expectation, pursuant to FHFA’s directive, that we will make our first payment of $217 million to specified 

HUD and Treasury funds on or before February 29, 2016, based on the amount of our new business purchases in 

2015;

• Our expectation that the final risk retention rule under the Dodd-Frank Act will not significantly change our current 

business practices;

• Our intention not to exercise our contractual remedies for noncompliance with the newly applicable provisions of 

TRID except in two limited circumstances;

• Our expectation that our placement into receivership would likely have a material adverse effect on holders of our 

common stock and preferred stock, and could have a material adverse effect on holders of our debt securities and 

Fannie Mae MBS;

• Our belief that, if we are liquidated, it is unlikely that there would be sufficient funds remaining after payment of 

amounts to our creditors and to Treasury as holder of the senior preferred stock to make any distribution to holders 

of our common stock and other preferred stock;
46

• Our expectation that if there were several high-level employee departures at approximately the same time, our 

ability to conduct our business would likely be materially adversely affected, which could have a material adverse 

effect on our results of operations and financial condition;

• Our expectation that we will continue to devote significant resources to meeting FHFA’s goals for our 

conservatorship;

• Our expectation that the common securitization platform and single security initiative and related internal 

infrastructure upgrades will result in significant changes to our current systems and operations;

• Our intention to sell our current principal office located at 3900 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Washington, DC, as well as 

two other Washington, DC office facilities;

• Our expectation that administrative expenses will be lower in 2016 compared with 2015;

• Our expectation that the guaranty fees we collect and the expenses we incur under the TCCA will continue to 

increase in the future;

• Our expectation that, as we continue to reduce the number of single-family nonperforming loans held for investment 

in our book of business, changes in home prices will have a lesser impact on our provision for credit losses;

• Our expectation that we will continue to purchase 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 plans may be difficult or impossible to execute for a company of our size in 

our circumstances;

• Our belief that the amount of mortgage-related assets that we could successfully sell or borrow against in the event 

of a liquidity crisis or significant market disruption is substantially lower than the amount of mortgage-related assets 

we hold;

• 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 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;

• Our belief 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;

• Our expectations regarding our credit ratings and their impact on us as set forth in “MD&A—Liquidity and Capital 

Management—Liquidity Management—Credit Ratings” and “Risk Factors”;

• Our expectation that we will not remediate the material weakness in our disclosure controls and procedures while we 

are under conservatorship;

• 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 December 31, 2015 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);

• Our expectation that the volume of refinancings under HARP will continue to decline, due to a decrease in the 

population of borrowers with loans that have high LTV ratios who are willing to refinance and would benefit from 

refinancing; 

• Our expectation that our acquisitions of Alt-A mortgage loans (which are limited to refinancings of existing Fannie 

Mae 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;
47

• Our belief that we have limited exposure to credit losses on home equity conversion mortgages;

• Our expectation that the current performance trend for our interest-only loans and negative-amortizing loans that 

have recently reset compared to those that are still in the initial period would not continue if interest rates rose 

significantly;

• Our belief that retaining special servicers to service some delinquent loan populations that include loans with higherrisk characteristics using high-touch protocols will reduce our future credit losses on the transferred loan portfolio;

• Our expectation that our single-family serious delinquency rate will continue to decrease;

• 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 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 expectation that our institutional credit risk exposure to derivatives clearing organizations and certain of their 

members will increase substantially in the future as cleared derivative contracts comprise a larger percentage of our 

derivative instruments;

• Our assumption that the guaranty fee income generated from our future business activity will largely replace the 

guaranty fee income lost due to mortgage prepayments;

• Our expectations regarding our role as HAMP program administrator, including how long we will continue in the 

role and amounts we will receive from Treasury pursuant to the role; and

• Our expectation that we will receive full cash payment from only half of our non-governmental financial guarantor 

counterparties.

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, 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 GSE 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 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,” as 
48

well as the factors described in “Executive Summary—Outlook—Factors that Could Cause Actual Results to be Materially 

Different from Our Estimates and Expectations.” 

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 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. 

Item 1A. Risk Factors

Refer to “MD&A—Risk Management” 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, we face risks and uncertainties not currently known to us or that we currently believe are immaterial.

RISKS RELATING TO OUR BUSINESS

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” for more information about the Administration’s statements and Congressional proposals regarding housing 

finance reform. 

We may not have sufficient capital reserves to avoid a net worth deficit if we experience a comprehensive loss in a future 

quarter. If we have a net worth deficit in a future quarter, we will be required to draw funds from Treasury in order to 

avoid being placed into receivership. 

As a result of the dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock and quarterly directives from our conservator, we are 

obligated to pay Treasury each quarter 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. Accordingly, our dividend obligations will 

result in our retaining a limited and decreasing amount of our net worth each year until 2018. Beginning in 2018, we will no 

longer retain any of our net worth, as the entire amount of our net worth at the end of each quarter will be required to be paid 

to Treasury. 
49

Because we are permitted to retain only a limited and decreasing amount of capital reserves through 2017, we may not have 

sufficient reserves to avoid a net worth deficit if we experience a comprehensive loss in a future quarter. In addition, 

beginning in 2018, we are not permitted to retain any capital reserves against losses in subsequent quarters; therefore, if we 

have a comprehensive loss for a quarter we will also have a net worth deficit for that quarter. We have experienced and 

expect to continue to experience volatility in our financial results from period to period due to a number of factors, 

particularly changes in market conditions that result in fluctuations in the estimated fair value of the financial instruments, 

such as derivatives and certain securities, that we mark to market through our earnings. Our credit-related income or expense 

also 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 volumes of our loss mitigation activities, the volumes of foreclosures completed, 

redesignations of loans from HFI to HFS, and fluctuations in mortgage interest rates. Accordingly, although we expect to 

remain profitable on an annual basis for the foreseeable future, the expected volatility in our financial results, which may be 

significant from quarter to quarter, could result in a net worth deficit in a future quarter, particularly as our capital reserve 

approaches or reaches zero. Other factors such as changes in accounting standards or legislative actions could result in a net 

worth deficit in a future quarter. For example, legislation that results in a decrease in the federal corporate income tax rate 

could result in a substantial reduction of our deferred tax assets. If this were to occur, it could result in a net worth deficit for 

the quarter in which the reduction occurs. 

For any quarter for which we have a net worth deficit, we will be required to draw 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. Accordingly, if we experience multiple quarters of net worth deficits over several years, the 

amount of remaining funding available under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement could be significantly reduced 

from its current level.

Our regulator is authorized or required to place us into receivership under specified conditions, which would result in the 

liquidation of our assets. Amounts recovered from the liquidation may not be sufficient to repay the liquidation preference 

of any series of our preferred stock or to provide any proceeds to common shareholders. 

FHFA is required to place us into receivership if the Director of FHFA makes a written determination that our assets are less 

than our obligations for a period of 60 days after the filing deadline for our Form 10-K or Form 10-Q with the SEC. Although 

Treasury committed to providing us funds in accordance with the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, if 

we need funding from Treasury to avoid triggering FHFA’s obligation, Treasury may not be able to provide sufficient funds to 

us within the required 60 days if it has exhausted its borrowing authority, if there is a government shutdown, or if the funding 

we need exceeds the amount available to us under the agreement. In addition, we could be put into receivership at the 

discretion of the Director of FHFA 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.

A receivership would terminate the conservatorship. In addition to the powers FHFA has as our conservator, the appointment 

of FHFA as our receiver would terminate all rights and claims that our shareholders and creditors may have against our assets 

or under our charter arising from their status as shareholders or creditors, except for their right to payment, resolution or other 

satisfaction of their claims as permitted under the GSE Act. If we are placed into receivership and do not or cannot fulfill our 

guaranty to the holders of our Fannie Mae MBS, the MBS holders could become unsecured creditors of ours with respect to 

claims made under our guaranty, to the extent the mortgage collateral underlying the Fannie Mae MBS is insufficient to 

satisfy the claims of the MBS holders. 

In the event of a liquidation of our assets, only after payment of the administrative expenses of the receiver and the 

immediately preceding conservator, the secured and unsecured claims against the company (including repaying all 

outstanding debt obligations), and the liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock, would any liquidation proceeds be 

available to repay the liquidation preference on any other series of preferred stock. Finally, only after the liquidation 

preference on all series of preferred stock is repaid would any liquidation proceeds be available for distribution to the holders 

of our common stock. We believe that in the event of a liquidation of our assets it is unlikely that there would be sufficient 

proceeds to make any distribution to holders of our preferred stock or common stock, other than to Treasury as a holder of 

our senior preferred stock.
50

Our business and results of operations may be materially adversely affected if we are unable to retain and recruit wellqualified senior executives and other employees. The conservatorship, the uncertainty of our future, limitations on our 

executive and employee compensation, and negative publicity concerning the GSEs put us at a disadvantage compared to 

many other companies in attracting and retaining these employees.

Our business processes are highly dependent on the talents and efforts of our senior executives and other employees. 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 wellqualified executives and other employees. Our business is highly complex and we are currently undertaking critical work to 

help build a sustainable housing finance system; therefore, continuity of our current management team under the leadership 

of our Chief Executive Officer is important. Turnover in key management positions and challenges in integrating new 

management could harm our ability to manage our business effectively and successfully finalize the implementation of our 

and FHFA’s current strategic initiatives, and ultimately could adversely affect our financial performance. 

Actions taken by Congress, FHFA and Treasury to date, or that may be taken by them or other government agencies in the 

future, have had, and may continue to have, an adverse effect on the retention and recruitment of senior executives and other 

employees. We are subject to significant restrictions on the amount and type of compensation we may pay our executives and 

other employees under conservatorship. In November 2015, the Equity in Government Compensation Act of 2015 was 

enacted. This law sets the annual direct compensation of our Chief Executive Officer at $600,000 while we are in 

conservatorship or receivership. We are also subject to the STOCK Act, which was enacted in April 2012 and includes a 

provision that prohibits our senior executives from receiving bonuses during any period of conservatorship on or after the 

date of enactment of the law. In addition, we are unable to offer equity-based compensation. As a result of these restrictions, 

we have not been able to incent and reward excellent performance with compensation structures that provide upside potential 

to our executives, which places us at a disadvantage compared to many other companies in attracting and retaining 

executives. In addition, the uncertainty of potential congressional action with respect to housing finance reform, which may 

result in the wind-down of the company, also negatively affects our ability to retain and recruit executives and other 

employees.

In many cases, the amount of compensation we pay our senior executives is significantly less than the compensation of 

executives in similar roles at many companies in our comparator group. Our inability to increase executive compensation to 

market levels for the foreseeable future puts us at greater risk of attrition, and also hampers our ability to recruit new 

executives. Moreover, our inability to offer market-based compensation makes succession planning difficult. In particular, the 

limit on the annual direct compensation of our Chief Executive Officer to $600,000, which became effective November 25, 

2015, may negatively affect our ability to retain our Chief Executive Officer and adversely affects our ability to engage in 

effective succession planning for this critical role. 

We face competition from within the financial services industry and from businesses outside of the financial services industry 

for qualified executives and other employees. Additionally, an improving economy has put additional pressures on turnover, 

as attractive opportunities have become available to our executives and other employees. Our competitors for talent are 

generally not subject to the same limitations on executive compensation. The constraints on our executive compensation 

could adversely affect our ability to attract and retain qualified candidates. 

If we are unable to retain, promote and attract executives and other employees with the necessary skills and talent, we would 

face increased risks for operational failures. If there were several high-level departures at approximately the same time, our 

ability to conduct our business would likely be materially adversely affected, which could have a material adverse effect on 

our results of operations and financial condition.

Our business activities are significantly affected by the conservatorship and the senior preferred stock purchase 

agreement. 

We are currently under the control of our conservator, FHFA, and we do not know when or how the conservatorship will 

terminate. As conservator, FHFA can direct us to enter into contracts or enter into contracts on our behalf, and generally has 

the power to transfer or sell any of our assets or liabilities. In addition, our directors do not have fiduciary duties to any 

person or entity except to the conservator. Accordingly, our directors 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 in making or approving a decision 

unless specifically directed to do so by the conservator. 

We are subject to significant restrictions on our business activities during conservatorship. We may be prevented by our 

conservator from engaging in business activities or transactions that we believe would benefit our business and financial 

results. For example, because FHFA must approve changes to the national loan level price adjustments we charge and can 

direct us to make other changes to our guaranty fee pricing, our ability to address changing market conditions, pursue certain 
51

strategic objectives, or manage the mix of loans lenders choose to deliver to us is constrained. We publish national risk-based 

loan level price adjustment grids that specify the additional cash fees we charge at the time we acquire a loan based on the 

credit characteristics of the loan. These fees allow us to price appropriately for the credit risk we assume in providing our 

guaranty on the loans. We do not have the ability to implement changes to these pricing grids without the approval of FHFA. 

If the mix of our single-family loan acquisitions changes, and FHFA does not approve requested changes to our pricing grids 

in response to these changes, it could adversely affect our financial results and condition. In addition, FHFA may direct us to 

make changes to our guaranty fee pricing that could materially affect our financial results. If FHFA directs us to decrease our 

guaranty fee pricing, depending on the extent of the decrease, it could result in a significant decrease in our guaranty fee 

revenues in future periods. If FHFA directs us to increase our guaranty fee pricing, depending on the extent of the increase, it 

could result in some of our lender customers retaining lower credit risk loans for their portfolio or delivering them to our 

competitors instead of delivering the loans to us. This could lead to a decrease in our single-family business volume, 

negatively affect the credit risk profile of our new single-family acquisitions and adversely affect our financial results and 

condition. 

Because we are under the control of our conservator, our business objectives may not be consistent with the investment 

objectives of our investors. We may be required by our conservator to engage in activities that are operationally difficult, 

costly to implement or unprofitable, or that may adversely affect our financial results or the credit risk profile of our book of 

business. FHFA has changed our business objectives significantly since we entered conservatorship, and could make 

additional changes at any time. Actions we take to meet FHFA’s strategic goals and objectives for our conservatorship could 

adversely affect our financial results. For example, FHFA’s 2015 and 2016 conservatorship scorecards include objectives 

relating to the development of a single security for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We believe the implementation of a single 

GSE security would likely reduce, and could eliminate, the trading advantage Fannie Mae MBS have over Freddie Mac PCs. 

If this occurs, it could adversely affect our financial results. In addition, FHFA’s 2015 and 2016 conservatorship scorecards 

include objectives relating to the sale of nonperforming loans in our book of business. These transactions could result in the 

sale of mortgage loans we hold at prices below the levels recorded in our financial statements or the sale of loans that may be 

more financially advantageous for us to hold. Moreover, we are devoting significant resources to meeting FHFA’s goals for 

our conservatorship and expect to continue to do so.

The senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury includes a number of covenants that significantly restrict our 

business activities. We cannot, without the prior written consent of Treasury: pay dividends (except on the senior preferred 

stock); sell, issue, purchase or redeem Fannie Mae equity securities; sell, transfer, lease or otherwise dispose of assets in 

specified situations; engage in transactions with affiliates other than on arm’s-length terms or in the ordinary course of 

business; issue subordinated debt; or incur indebtedness that would result in our aggregate indebtedness exceeding 120% of 

the amount of mortgage assets we are allowed to own under the agreement. In deciding whether to consent to any request for 

approval it receives from us under the agreement, Treasury has the right to withhold its consent for any reason and is not 

required by the agreement to consider any particular factors, including whether or not management believes that the 

transaction would benefit the company. Pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, the maximum allowable 

amount of mortgage assets we were permitted to own as of December 31, 2015 was $399.2 billion, and on each December 31 

thereafter, our mortgage assets may not exceed 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 

addition, FHFA has requested that we further cap our mortgage assets each year at 90% of the annual limit under our senior 

preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. 

Actions taken by the conservator and the restrictions set forth in the senior preferred stock purchase agreement could 

adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth. 

A number of lawsuits have been filed against the U.S. government relating to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement 

and the conservatorship. See “Note 18, Commitments and Contingencies” and “Legal Proceedings” for a description of these 

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. Accordingly, we cannot predict 

what impact, if any, these lawsuits will have on our business.

The conservatorship and investment by Treasury have had, and will continue to have, a material adverse effect on our 

common and preferred shareholders. 

We do not know when or how the conservatorship will terminate. Moreover, even if the conservatorship is terminated, we 

remain subject to the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, senior preferred stock and warrant, which can 

only be canceled or modified with the consent of Treasury. The conservatorship and investment by Treasury have had, and 

will continue to have, material adverse effects on our common and preferred shareholders, including the following: 
52

No voting rights during conservatorship. The rights and powers of our shareholders are suspended during conservatorship. 

During conservatorship, our common shareholders do not have the ability to elect directors or to vote on other matters unless 

the conservator delegates this authority to them. 

Dividends to common and preferred shareholders, other than to Treasury, have been eliminated. Our conservator announced 

in September 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, while we are in conservatorship. In addition, under the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase 

agreement, dividends may not be paid to common or preferred shareholders (other than on the senior preferred stock) without 

the prior written consent of Treasury, regardless of whether we are in conservatorship. 

Our future profits will effectively be distributed to Treasury. As described in a risk factor above, the terms of the senior 

preferred stock purchase agreement and the senior preferred stock ultimately require the payment of our entire net worth to 

Treasury. As a result, our net income is not available to common shareholders or preferred shareholders other than Treasury 

as holder of the senior preferred stock. 

Liquidation preference of senior preferred stock is high and could increase. The senior preferred stock ranks prior to our 

common stock and all other series of our preferred stock, as well as any capital stock we issue in the future, as to both 

dividends and distributions upon liquidation. Accordingly, if we are liquidated, the senior preferred stock is entitled to its 

then-current liquidation preference, plus any accrued but unpaid dividends, before any distribution is made to the holders of 

our common stock or other preferred stock. The liquidation preference on the senior preferred stock is currently $117.1 

billion and would increase if we draw on Treasury’s funding commitment in any future quarters or if we do not pay dividends 

owed on the senior preferred stock. If we are liquidated, we believe it is unlikely that there would be sufficient funds 

remaining after payment of amounts to our creditors and to Treasury as holder of the senior preferred stock to make any 

distribution to holders of our common stock and other preferred stock. 

Exercise of the Treasury warrant would substantially dilute investment of current shareholders. If Treasury exercises its 

warrant to purchase shares of our common stock equal to 79.9% of the total number of shares of our common stock 

outstanding on a fully diluted basis, the ownership interest in the company of our then existing common shareholders will be 

substantially diluted, and we would thereafter have a controlling shareholder. 

No longer managed for the benefit of shareholders. Because we are in conservatorship, we are no longer managed with a 

strategy to maximize shareholder returns. 

For additional description of the restrictions on us and the risks to our shareholders, see “Business—Conservatorship and 

Treasury Agreements.” 

We may incur significant credit losses and credit-related expenses on the loans in our mortgage credit book of business, 

which could materially adversely affect our earnings, financial condition and net worth. 

We are exposed to a significant amount of mortgage credit risk on our $3.07 trillion mortgage credit book of business, which 

includes mortgage assets that back our guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS, mortgage assets in our retained mortgage portfolio and 

credit enhancements we provide. Borrowers of mortgage loans that we own or guaranty may fail to make required payments 

of principal and interest on their mortgage loans, exposing us to the risk of credit losses and credit-related expenses. 

Although we strengthened our underwriting and eligibility standards in late 2008 and 2009, we continue to have a significant 

number of mortgage loans in our single-family book of business originated prior to this time with certain characteristics that 

expose us to greater credit risk than other types of mortgage loans, such as Alt-A loans, interest-only loans and loans with 

FICO credit scores less than 620. We also have a significant number of loans in our single-family book of business with 

original LTV ratios greater than 90%, which may pose a higher credit risk than loans with lower LTV ratios. We present 

detailed information about the risk characteristics of our single-family conventional guaranty book of business in “MD&A—

Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management,” and we present 

information on our 2015 credit-related expenses and credit losses in “MD&A—Consolidated Results of Operations—CreditRelated Income (Expense).” The credit performance of loans in our book of business could deteriorate in the future, 

particularly if we experience national or regional declines in home prices, weakening economic conditions or high 

unemployment, resulting in higher credit losses and credit-related expenses. Increases in our credit-related expenses would 

reduce our earnings and adversely affect our financial condition and net worth.

While we use certain credit enhancements to mitigate some of our potential future credit losses, these transactions may 

provide less protection than we expect. Some of the credit enhancements we use, such as mortgage insurance and credit 

insurance risk transfer transactions, are subject to the risk that the counterparties may not meet their obligations to us. In 

addition, our credit risk transfer transactions are 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.
53

A failure in our operational systems or infrastructure, or those of third parties, could materially adversely affect our 

business, impair our liquidity, cause financial losses and harm our reputation. 

Shortcomings or failures in our internal processes, people or systems could disrupt our business or have a material adverse 

effect on our risk management, liquidity, financial statement reliability, financial condition and results of operations. Such a 

failure could result in legislative or regulatory intervention or sanctions, liability to customers, financial losses, business 

disruptions and damage to our reputation. For example, our business is highly dependent on our ability to manage and 

process, on a daily basis, an extremely large number of transactions, many of which are highly complex, across numerous and 

diverse markets and in an environment in which we must adapt to changing external conditions. These transactions are 

subject to various legal, accounting and regulatory standards. Our financial, accounting, data processing or other operating 

systems and facilities may fail to operate properly or become disabled or damaged as a result of a number of factors, 

including events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, adversely affecting our ability to process these transactions. 

In addition, we rely on information provided by third parties in processing many of our transactions; that information may be 

incorrect or we may fail to properly manage or analyze it. 

We rely upon business processes that are highly dependent on people, legacy technology and the use of numerous complex 

systems and models to manage our business and produce books and records upon which our financial statements are 

prepared. This reliance increases the risk that we may be exposed to financial, reputational or other losses as a result of 

inadequately designed internal processes or systems, or failed execution of our systems. While we continue to enhance our 

technology, operational controls and organizational structure in order to reduce our operational risk, these actions may not be 

effective to manage these risks and may create additional operational risk as we execute these enhancements. In addition, our 

increased use of third-party service providers for some of our business functions increases the risk that an operational failure 

by a third party will adversely affect us. 

We also face the risk of operational failure, termination or capacity constraints of any of the clearing agents, exchanges, 

clearinghouses or other financial intermediaries we use to facilitate our securities and derivatives transactions. In recent 

years, there has been significant consolidation among clearing agents, exchanges and clearing houses. This consolidation and 

interconnectivity increases the risk of operational failure, on both an individual basis and an industry-wide basis, as disparate 

complex systems need to be integrated, often on an accelerated basis. Any such failure, termination or constraint could 

adversely affect our ability to effect transactions or manage our exposure to risk, and could have a significant adverse impact 

on our business, liquidity, financial condition, net worth and results of operations. 

Additionally, nearly all of our employees in our primary locations, including the Washington, DC and Dallas, Texas 

metropolitan areas, work in relatively close proximity to one another. Notwithstanding the business continuity plans and 

facilities that we have in place, given that most of our facilities and employees are located in the Washington, DC and Dallas 

metropolitan areas, a catastrophic event such as a terrorist attack, natural disaster, extreme weather event or disease pandemic 

could overwhelm our recovery capabilities. Although we have built an out-of-region data center for disaster recovery in order 

to increase the geographic diversity of our business continuity plans, most of our employees are located in the Washington, 

DC and Dallas metropolitan areas. If a regional disruption occurs and our employees are not able to occupy our facilities, 

work remotely, or communicate with or travel to other locations, we may not be able to successfully implement our 

contingency plans, which could materially adversely affect our ability to conduct our business and lead to financial losses.

A breach of the security of our systems, or those of third parties with which we do business, including as a result of cyber 

attacks, could damage or disrupt our business or result in the disclosure or misuse of confidential information, which 

could damage our reputation, increase our costs and cause losses.

Our operations rely on the secure receipt, processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our 

computer systems and networks and with our business partners, including confidential or personal information that is subject 

to privacy laws, regulations or customer-imposed controls. Information security risks for large institutions like us have 

significantly increased in recent years in part because of the proliferation of new technologies, the use of the Internet and 

telecommunications technologies to conduct financial transactions, and the increased sophistication and activities of 

organized crime, hackers, terrorists and other external parties, including foreign state-sponsored actors. From time to time we 

have been, and likely will continue to be, the target of attempted cyber attacks, computer viruses, malicious code, phishing 

attacks, denial of service attacks and other information security breaches. To date, we have not experienced any material 

losses relating to cyber attacks, but we could suffer such losses in the future. Our risk and exposure to these matters remains 

heightened because of, among other things, the evolving nature of these threats, our prominent size and scale and our role in 

the financial services industry, the outsourcing of some of our business operations, and the current global economic and 

political environment. As a result, we have increased our investments in the development and enhancement of controls, 

processes and practices designed to prevent, detect and respond to information security threats.
54

Although we take measures to protect the security of our computer systems, software and networks, our computer systems, 

software and networks may be vulnerable to cyber attack, breaches, unauthorized access, misuse, computer viruses or other 

malicious code and other events that could have a security impact. The occurrence of such an event could jeopardize or result 

in the unauthorized disclosure, gathering, monitoring, misuse, corruption, loss or destruction of confidential and other 

information that belongs to us, our customers, our counterparties or borrowers that is processed and stored in, and transmitted 

through, our computer systems and networks. The occurrence of such an event also could result in damage to our computers 

or systems, or otherwise cause interruptions or malfunctions in our, our customers’, our counterparties’ or third parties’

operations. This could result in significant losses, loss of customers and business opportunities, reputational damage, 

litigation, regulatory fines, penalties or intervention, reimbursement or other compensatory costs, or otherwise adversely 

affect our business, financial condition or results of operations. In addition, we may be required to expend significant 

additional resources to modify our protective measures and to investigate and remediate vulnerabilities or other exposures 

arising from operational and security risks. Although we maintain insurance coverage relating to cybersecurity risks, our 

insurance may not be sufficient to provide adequate loss coverage in all circumstances.

Third parties with which we do business may also be sources of cybersecurity or other technological risks. We outsource 

certain functions and these relationships allow for the storage and processing of our information, as well as customer, 

counterparty and borrower information. While we engage in actions to mitigate our exposure resulting from outsourcing, 

ongoing threats may result in unauthorized access, loss or destruction of data or other cybersecurity incidents with increased 

costs and consequences to us such as those described above.

Our concurrent implementation of multiple new initiatives may increase our operational risk and result in one or more 

significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting.

We are currently implementing a number of initiatives in furtherance of our goals to better serve our customers’ needs, 

improve our business efficiency and help to build a sustainable housing finance system, including initiatives implementing 

FHFA’s conservatorship scorecard objectives. The magnitude of the many new initiatives we are undertaking may increase 

our operational risk. Many of these initiatives involve significant changes to our business processes, systems and 

infrastructure, and present significant operational challenges for us. For example, we are working with FHFA and Freddie 

Mac on a multi-year effort to build a common securitization platform to eventually replace some of our current securitization 

infrastructure and to issue a single GSE security on this platform. This initiative, in coordination with related internal 

infrastructure upgrades, is expected to result in significant changes to our current systems and operations, and involves a high 

degree of complexity. While implementation of each individual initiative creates operational challenges, implementing 

multiple initiatives during the same time period significantly increases these challenges. Due to the operational complexity 

associated with these changes and the limited time periods for implementing them, we believe there is a significant risk that 

implementing these changes could result in one or more significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in our internal 

control over financial reporting in a future period. If this were to occur, we could experience material errors in our reported 

financial results. In addition, FHFA, Treasury, other agencies of the U.S. government or Congress may require us to take 

actions in the future that could further increase our operational risk.

We may undertake efforts that adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net 

worth. 

In conservatorship our business is no longer managed with a strategy to maximize shareholder returns while fulfilling our 

mission. FHFA’s current strategic goals for our conservatorship are described in “Business—Executive Summary—Helping 

to Build a Sustainable Housing Finance System.” In pursuit of these or other goals prescribed by our conservator, we may 

take a variety of actions that could adversely affect our economic returns, possibly significantly, such as modifying loans to 

defer principal, lower the interest rate or extend the maturity; engaging in principal reduction; expanding our underwriting 

and eligibility requirements to increase access to mortgage credit; or issuing a single GSE security. We are already taking 

some of these actions. These activities may have short- and long-term adverse effects on our business, results of operations, 

financial condition, liquidity and net worth. 

Other agencies of the U.S. government or Congress also may ask us to undertake significant efforts to support the housing 

and mortgage markets, as well as struggling homeowners. They may also ask us to take actions in support of other goals. 

These actions may adversely affect our financial results and condition. For example, in December 2011 Congress enacted the 

TCCA under which, at the direction of FHFA, we increased the guaranty fee on all single-family residential mortgages 

delivered to us by 10 basis points effective April 1, 2012. The revenue generated by this fee increase is paid to Treasury and 

helps offset the cost of a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut from January 1, 2012 through February 29, 2012. FHFA

and Treasury advised us to remit this fee increase to Treasury with respect to all loans acquired by us on or after April 1, 2012 
55

and before January 1, 2022, and to continue to remit these amounts to Treasury on and after January 1, 2022 with respect to 

loans we acquired before this date until those loans are paid off or otherwise liquidated. 

We are also required by the GSE Act to undertake efforts in support of the housing market that could adversely affect our 

financial results and condition. For example, we are subject to housing goals under the GSE Act that require that a portion of 

the mortgage loans we acquire must be for low- and very-low income families, families in low-income census tracts and 

moderate-income families in minority census tracts or designated disaster areas. FHFA’s 2015 to 2017 housing goals include 

higher benchmarks for most of the goals than those that were applicable for 2014. In addition, the 2008 Reform Act created a 

new duty to serve very low-, low- and moderate-income families in three underserved markets: manufactured housing, 

affordable housing preservation and rural areas. FHFA issued a proposed rule to implement these duty to serve requirements 

in December 2015. If the proposed rule is adopted in its current form, we will be required to make changes to our business 

and our acquisitions in the future to comply with our new duty to serve obligations. We may take actions to meet our housing 

goals and duty to serve obligations that could adversely affect our profitability. For example, we may acquire loans that offer 

lower expected returns on our investment than our other loan acquisitions and that may potentially increase our credit losses 

and credit-related expenses. If we do not meet our housing goals or duty to serve requirements, and FHFA finds that the goals 

or requirements 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. See “Business—Our Charter and Regulation 

of Our Activities—The GSE Act—Housing Goals and Duty to Serve Underserved Markets” for more information on our 

housing goals and duty to serve underserved markets.

Limitations on our ability to access the debt capital markets could have a material adverse effect on our ability to fund our 

operations and generate net interest income. 

Our ability to fund our business depends primarily on our ongoing access to the debt capital markets. The level of net interest 

income generated by our retained mortgage portfolio assets depends on how much lower our cost of funds is compared with 

what we earn on our mortgage assets. Market concerns about matters such as the extent of government support for our 

business, the future of our business (including future profitability, future structure, regulatory actions and GSE status) and the 

creditworthiness of the U.S. government could cause a severe negative effect on our access to the unsecured debt markets, 

particularly for long-term debt. We believe that our ability in recent years to issue debt of varying maturities at attractive 

pricing resulted from federal government support of our business. As a result, we believe that our status as a GSE and 

continued federal government support is 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. There can be no assurance that the government will continue to support us, or 

that our current level of access to debt funding will continue. In addition, due to our reliance on the U.S. government’s 

support, our access to debt funding also could be materially adversely affected by a change or perceived change in the 

creditworthiness of the U.S. government. 

Future changes or disruptions in the financial markets could significantly change the amount, mix and cost of funds we 

obtain, as well as our liquidity position. If we are unable to issue both short- and long-term debt securities at attractive rates 

and in amounts sufficient to operate our business and meet our obligations, it likely would interfere with the operation of our 

business and have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, results of operations, financial condition and net worth. 

Our liquidity contingency plans may be difficult or impossible to execute during a liquidity crisis. 

We believe that our liquidity contingency plans may be difficult or impossible to execute during a liquidity crisis. If we 

cannot access the unsecured debt markets, our ability to repay maturing indebtedness and fund our operations could be 

eliminated or significantly impaired. In this event, our alternative sources of liquidity—consisting of our cash and other 

investments portfolio and the unencumbered mortgage assets in our retained mortgage portfolio—may not be sufficient to 

meet our liquidity needs. 

We believe that the amount of mortgage-related assets that we could successfully sell or borrow against in the event of a 

liquidity crisis or significant market disruption is substantially lower than the amount of mortgage-related assets we hold. 

Due to the large size of our portfolio of mortgage assets, current market conditions and the significant amount of distressed 

assets in our retained mortgage portfolio, there would likely be insufficient market demand for large amounts of these assets 

over a prolonged period of time, which would limit our ability to borrow against or sell these assets. 

To the extent that we are able to obtain funding by pledging or selling mortgage-related securities as collateral, we anticipate 

that a discount would be applied that would reduce the value assigned to those securities. Depending on market conditions at 

the time, this discount could result in proceeds significantly lower than the current market value of these securities and could 

thereby reduce the amount of financing we obtain. In addition, our primary source of collateral is Fannie Mae MBS that we 

own. In the event of a liquidity crisis in which the future of our company is uncertain, counterparties may be unwilling to 
56

accept Fannie Mae MBS as collateral. As a result, we may not be able to sell or borrow against these securities in sufficient 

amounts to meet our liquidity needs. 

A decrease in the credit ratings on our senior unsecured debt could have an adverse effect on our ability to issue debt on 

reasonable terms, and would likely do so if such a decrease were not based on a similar action on the credit ratings of the 

U.S. government. A decrease in our credit ratings also could trigger additional collateral requirements under our 

derivatives contracts.

Credit ratings on our senior unsecured debt, as well as the credit ratings of the U.S. government, are primary factors that 

could affect our borrowing costs and our access to the debt capital markets. Credit ratings on our debt are subject to revision 

or withdrawal at any time by the rating agencies. Actions by governmental entities impacting the support we receive from 

Treasury could adversely affect the credit ratings on our senior unsecured debt. As of December 31, 2015, our long-term debt 

was rated “AA+” by Standard & Poor’s Ratings Services (“S&P”), “Aaa” by Moody’s Investors Services (“Moody’s”) and 

“AAA” by Fitch Ratings Limited (“Fitch”). 

Because we rely on the U.S. government for capital support, in recent years, when a rating agency has taken an action 

relating to the U.S. government’s credit rating, they have taken a similar action relating to our ratings at approximately the 

same time. S&P, Moody’s and Fitch have all indicated that they would likely lower their ratings on the debt of Fannie Mae 

and certain other government-related entities if they were to lower their ratings on the U.S. government. We currently cannot 

predict whether one or more of these rating agencies will downgrade our debt ratings in the future, nor can we predict the 

potential impact. Although S&P’s downgrade of our credit rating from “AAA” to “AA+” in August 2011 has not increased 

our borrowing costs or limited our access to the debt capital markets to date, an additional reduction in our credit ratings 

could have a material adverse impact on our access to debt funding or on the cost of our debt funding, and would likely do so 

if it were not based on a similar action on the credit ratings of the U.S. government.

An additional reduction in our credit ratings may also trigger additional collateral requirements under our derivative contracts 

because a majority of our over-the-counter (“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 our OTC 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 as of December 31, 2015 was $2.4 

billion, for which we posted collateral of $2.2 billion in the normal course of business. If our senior unsecured debt had been 

downgraded to AA or Aa1, or even to AA- or Aa2, we would not have been required to post any additional collateral under 

these agreements as of December 31, 2015. If all of the credit-risk-related contingency features underlying these agreements 

had been triggered, an additional $257 million would have been required either to be posted as collateral or to immediately 

settle our positions based on the individual agreements and our fair value position as of December 31, 2015. An additional 

reduction in our credit ratings also could cause derivatives clearing organizations or their members to demand that we post 

additional collateral for our cleared derivative contracts. Further, an additional reduction in our credit ratings may materially 

adversely affect our liquidity, our ability to conduct our normal business operations, our financial condition and our results of 

operations. Our credit ratings and ratings outlook are included in “MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity 

Management—Credit Ratings.”

One or more of our institutional counterparties may fail to fulfill their contractual obligations to us, resulting in financial 

losses, business disruption and decreased ability to manage risk. 

We routinely execute a high volume of transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry. We face the risk that 

one or more of our institutional counterparties may fail to fulfill their contractual obligations to us. Our primary exposures to 

institutional counterparty risk are with mortgage servicers that service the loans we hold in our retained mortgage portfolio or 

that back our Fannie Mae MBS; mortgage sellers and servicers that are obligated to repurchase loans from us or reimburse us 

for losses in certain circumstances; third-party providers of credit enhancement on the mortgage assets that we hold in our 

retained mortgage portfolio or that back our Fannie Mae MBS, including mortgage insurers, financial guarantors, credit 

insurance risk transfer counterparties and multifamily lenders with risk sharing arrangements; issuers of investments held in 

our cash and other investments portfolio; and derivatives counterparties. 

We may have multiple exposures to one counterparty as many of our counterparties provide several types of services to us. 

For example, our lender customers or their affiliates may also act as derivatives counterparties, mortgage servicers, custodial 

depository institutions or document custodians. Accordingly, if one of these counterparties were to become insolvent or 

otherwise default on its obligations to us, it could harm our business and financial results in a variety of ways. 
57

An institutional counterparty may default in its obligations to us for a number of reasons, such as changes in financial 

condition that affect its credit rating, changes in its servicer rating, a reduction in liquidity, operational failures or insolvency. 

Counterparty defaults or limitations on their ability to do business with us could result in significant financial losses or 

hamper our ability to do business, which could materially adversely affect our business, results of operations, financial 

condition, liquidity and net worth. 

We depend on our ability to enter into derivatives transactions in order to manage the duration and prepayment risk of our 

retained mortgage portfolio. If we lose access to our derivatives counterparties, it could adversely affect our ability to manage 

these risks, which could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition and 

liquidity. 

Our financial condition or results of operations may be adversely affected if mortgage servicers fail to perform their 

obligations to us.

We delegate the servicing of the mortgage loans in our guaranty book of business to mortgage servicers; we do not have our 

own servicing function. Functions performed by mortgage servicers on our behalf include collecting and delivering principal 

and interest payments, administering escrow accounts, monitoring and reporting delinquencies, performing default 

prevention activities and other functions. The inability of a mortgage servicer to perform these functions due to financial, 

operational, regulatory or other issues could negatively affect our ability to manage our book of business, delay or prevent 

our collection of amounts due to us or otherwise result in the failure to perform other servicing duties, resulting in financial 

losses. In addition, our servicers have an active role in our loss mitigation efforts, and a decline in their performance could 

affect our credit performance, including through missed opportunities for loan modifications.

A large portion of our single-family guaranty book is serviced by non-depository servicers. The potentially lower financial 

strength, liquidity and operational capacity of non-depository mortgage sellers and servicers compared with depository 

mortgage sellers and servicers may negatively affect their ability to satisfy their repurchase or compensatory fee obligations 

or to service the loans on our behalf. In addition, regulatory bodies have been reviewing the activities of some of our largest 

non-depository servicers. 

If we replace a mortgage servicer, we likely would incur costs and potential increases in servicing fees and could also face 

operational risks. If a mortgage servicer counterparty fails, it could result in a temporary disruption in servicing and loss 

mitigation activities relating to the loans serviced by that mortgage servicer, particularly if there is a loss of experienced 

servicing personnel. We may also face challenges in transferring a large servicing portfolio.

Multifamily mortgage servicing is typically performed by the lenders who sell the mortgages to us. We are exposed to the 

risk that multifamily servicers could come under financial pressure, which could potentially result in a decline in the quality 

of the servicing they provide us. 

We may incur losses as a result of claims under our mortgage insurance policies not being paid in full or at all. 

We rely heavily on mortgage insurers to provide insurance against borrower defaults on single-family conventional mortgage 

loans with LTV ratios over 80% at the time of acquisition. Although the financial condition of our primary mortgage insurer 

counterparties currently approved to write new business continued to improve during 2015, there is still risk that these 

counterparties may fail to fulfill their obligations to pay our claims under insurance policies. 

In addition, three of our mortgage insurer counterparties who are currently not approved to write new business—PMI 

Mortgage Insurance Co. (“PMI”), Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation (“Triad”) and Republic Mortgage Insurance 

Company (“RMIC”)—are under various forms of supervised control by their state regulators and are in run-off. A mortgage 

insurer that is in run-off continues to collect renewal premiums and process claims on its existing insurance business, but no 

longer writes new insurance, which increases the risk that the mortgage insurer will pay claims only in part or fail to pay 

claims at all under existing insurance policies. 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. PMI and Triad have been paying only a portion of policyholder claims and deferring the 

remaining portion. PMI is currently paying 70% of claims under its mortgage insurance policies in cash and is deferring the 

remaining 30%, and Triad is currently paying 75% of claims in cash and deferring the remaining 25%. It is uncertain whether 

PMI or Triad will be permitted in the future to pay any remaining deferred policyholder claims and/or increase or decrease 

the amount of cash they pay on claims. RMIC is no longer deferring payments on policyholder claims and has paid us its 

previously outstanding deferred payment obligations; however, RMIC has not paid us interest on its deferred payment 

obligations and remains in run-off and under the supervisory control of its state regulator. PMI, Triad and RMIC provided a 

combined $10.1 billion, or 9%, of our risk in force mortgage insurance coverage of our single-family guaranty book of 

business as of December 31, 2015. 
58

On at least a quarterly basis, we assess our mortgage insurer counterparties’ respective abilities to fulfill their obligations to 

us, and our loss reserves take into account this assessment. If our assessment indicates their ability to pay claims has 

deteriorated significantly or if our projected claim amounts have increased, it could result in an increase in our loss reserves 

and our credit losses. 

The loss of business volume from a key lender customer could adversely affect our business and result in a decrease in 

our revenues, especially if we are unable to replace the business volume that customer provided to us. 

Our ability to generate revenue from the purchase and securitization of mortgage loans depends on our ability to acquire a 

steady flow of mortgage loans from the originators of those loans. We acquire a significant portion of our mortgage loans 

from several large mortgage lenders, with our top five lender customers in terms of single-family business acquisition 

volume, in the aggregate, accounting for approximately 29% of our single-family business acquisition volume in 2015. 

Accordingly, maintaining our current business relationships and business volumes with our top lender customers is important 

to our business. To the extent a key lender customer significantly reduces the volume or quality of mortgage loans that the 

lender delivers to us or that we are willing to buy from them, we could lose significant business volume that we might be 

unable to replace, which could adversely affect our business and result in a decrease in our revenues. In addition, a significant 

reduction in the volume of mortgage loans that we securitize could reduce the liquidity of Fannie Mae MBS, which in turn 

could have an adverse effect on their market value.

Our reliance on third parties to service our mortgage loans may impede our efforts to keep people in their homes and 

adversely affect the re-performance rate of loans we modify. 

Mortgage servicers, or their agents and contractors, typically are the primary point of contact for borrowers on our loans. We 

rely on these mortgage servicers to identify and contact troubled borrowers as early as possible, to assess the situation and 

offer appropriate options for resolving the problem and to successfully implement a solution. Over the past few years, the 

demands placed on experienced mortgage loan servicers to service delinquent loans have increased significantly across the 

industry. As a result, mortgage servicers may not be successful in conducting their servicing activities in a manner that fully 

accomplishes our objectives within the timeframe we desire. Further, our servicers have advised us that they have not been 

able to reach many of the borrowers who may need help with their mortgage loans even when repeated efforts have been 

made to contact the borrower. 

For these reasons, our ability to actively manage the troubled loans that we own or guarantee, and to implement our 

homeownership assistance and foreclosure prevention efforts quickly and effectively, is limited by our reliance on our 

mortgage servicers. This reliance could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations and financial 

condition. 

Challenges to the MERS® company, system and processes could pose operational, reputational and legal risks for us. 

MERSCORP Holdings, Inc. (“MERSCORP”) is a privately held company that maintains an electronic registry (the “MERS 

System”) that tracks servicing rights and ownership of loans in the United States. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, 

Inc. (“MERS”), a wholly owned subsidiary of MERSCORP, can serve as a nominee for the owner of a mortgage loan and, in 

that role, become the mortgagee of record for the loan in local land records. Fannie Mae sellers and servicers may choose to 

use MERS as a nominee; however, we have prohibited servicers from initiating foreclosures on Fannie Mae loans in MERS’s 

name. A large portion of the loans we own or guarantee are registered in MERS’s name and the related servicing rights are 

tracked in the MERS System. The MERS System is widely used by participants in the mortgage finance industry. Along with 

a number of other organizations in the mortgage finance industry, we are a shareholder of MERSCORP. 

Numerous legal challenges have been made disputing MERS’s ability to initiate foreclosures, act as nominee in local land 

records, and/or assign mortgages or take other action on behalf of the loan owner. These challenges seek judicial relief 

ranging from money damages, fines and penalties to injunctive/declaratory relief seeking the prevention of mortgage 

assignments by MERS and/or the voiding of completed foreclosures in which MERS appeared in the chain of title. These 

challenges have focused public attention on MERS and on how loans are recorded in local land records. As a result, these 

challenges could negatively affect MERS’s ability to serve as the mortgagee of record in some jurisdictions, which could 

cause additional costs and time in the recordation process and could negatively impact our interest in the loans. These 

challenges also could result in court decisions that substantially delay new or pending foreclosures, or void completed 

foreclosures in certain jurisdictions, which would require that we re-foreclose on the affected properties, thereby increasing 

our costs and lengthening the time it takes for us to foreclose on and dispose of the properties. 

In addition, where MERS is the mortgagee of record, it must execute assignments of mortgages, affidavits and other legal 

documents in connection with foreclosure proceedings. In April 2011, federal banking regulators and FHFA announced that 

they were taking enforcement action against MERS and MERSCORP to address significant weaknesses in, among other 
59

things, oversight, management supervision and corporate governance at MERS and MERSCORP that were uncovered as part 

of the regulators’ review of mortgage servicers’ foreclosure processing. Failures by MERS or MERSCORP to apply prudent 

and effective process controls and to comply with legal and other requirements could pose counterparty, operational, 

reputational and legal risks for us. If investigations or new regulation or legislation restricts servicers’ use of MERS, our 

counterparties may be required to record all mortgage transfers in land records, incurring additional costs and time in the 

recordation process. The enforcement action and legal challenges against MERS and MERSCORP remain ongoing. The 

outcome of this enforcement action and these legal challenges could adversely affect our business, results of operations or 

financial condition. 

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 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.

Material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting could result in errors in our reported results or 

disclosures that are not complete or accurate. 

Management has determined that, as of the date of this filing, we have ineffective disclosure controls and procedures that 

result in a material weakness in our internal control over financial reporting. In addition, our independent registered public 

accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche LLP, has expressed an adverse opinion on our internal control over financial reporting 

because of the material weakness. Our ineffective disclosure controls and procedures and material weakness could result in 

errors in our reported results or disclosures that are not complete or accurate, which could have a material adverse effect on 

our business and operations.

Our material weakness relates specifically to the impact of the conservatorship on our disclosure controls and procedures. 

Because we are under the control of FHFA, 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. Because FHFA currently functions as both our regulator and our conservator, 

there are inherent structural limitations on our ability to design, implement, test or operate effective disclosure controls and 

procedures relating to information known to FHFA. As a result, 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 financial statements. Given the structural nature of this material weakness, we do not expect to remediate this weakness 

while we are under conservatorship. See “Controls and Procedures” for further discussion of management’s conclusions on 

our disclosure controls and procedures and internal control over financial reporting. 

In many cases, our accounting policies and methods, which are fundamental to how we report our financial condition and 

results of operations, require management to make judgments and estimates about matters that are inherently uncertain. 

Management also relies on models in making these estimates. 

Our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of 

operations. Our management must exercise judgment in applying many of these accounting policies and methods so that 

these policies and methods comply with GAAP and reflect management’s judgment of the most appropriate manner to report 

our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, management must select the appropriate accounting policy or 

method from two or more alternatives, any of which might be reasonable under the circumstances but might affect the 

amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses that we report. See “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting 

Policies” for a description of our significant accounting policies. 

We have identified two of our accounting policies as being critical to the presentation of our financial condition and results of 

operations. These accounting policies are described in “MD&A—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates.” We believe 

these policies are critical because they require management to make particularly subjective or complex judgments about 
60

matters that are inherently uncertain and because of the likelihood that materially different amounts would be reported under 

different conditions or using different assumptions. 

Because our financial statements involve estimates for amounts that are very large, even a small change in the estimate can 

have a significant impact for the reporting period. For example, because our total loss reserves are so large, even a change 

that has a small impact relative to the size of our loss reserves can have a meaningful impact on our results for the quarter in 

which we make the change. 

Many of our accounting methods involve substantial use of models. Models are inherently imperfect predictors of actual 

results because they are based on assumptions, including assumptions about future events. Our actual results could differ 

significantly from those generated by our models. As a result, the estimates that we use to prepare our financial statements, as 

well as our estimates of our future results of operations, may be inaccurate, perhaps significantly. 

Failure of our models to produce reliable results may adversely affect our ability to manage risk and make effective 

business decisions. 

We make significant use of quantitative models to measure and monitor our risk exposures and to manage our business. For 

example, we use models to measure and monitor our exposures to interest rate, credit and market risks, and to forecast credit 

losses. The information provided by these models is used in making business decisions relating to strategies, initiatives, 

transactions, pricing and products. 

Models are inherently imperfect predictors of actual results because they are based on historical data and assumptions 

regarding factors such as future loan demand, borrower behavior, creditworthiness and home price trends. Other potential 

sources of inaccurate or inappropriate model results include errors in computer code, bad data, misuse of data, or use of a 

model for a purpose outside the scope of the model’s design. Modeling often assumes that historical data or experience can 

be relied upon as a basis for forecasting future events, an assumption that may be especially tenuous in the face of 

unprecedented events. 

Given the challenges of predicting future behavior, management judgment is used at every stage of the modeling process, 

from model design decisions regarding core underlying assumptions, to interpreting and applying final model output. To 

control for these inherent imperfections, our models are validated by an independent model risk management team within our 

Enterprise Risk Division and are subject to control requirements set by our model risk policies. 

When market conditions change quickly and in unforeseen ways, there is an increased risk that the model assumptions and 

data inputs for our models are not representative of the most recent market conditions. Under such circumstances, we must 

rely on management judgment to make adjustments or overrides to our models. A formal model update is typically an 

extensive process that involves basic research, testing, independent validation and production implementation. In a rapidly 

changing environment, it may not be possible to update existing models quickly enough to properly account for the most 

recently available data and events. Management adjustments to modeled results are applied within the confines of the 

governance structure provided by a combination of our model risk management team and our finance and risk committees. 

If our models fail to produce reliable results on an ongoing basis, we may not make appropriate risk management decisions, 

including decisions affecting loan purchases, management of credit losses, guaranty fee pricing, and asset and liability 

management. Any of these decisions could adversely affect our businesses, results of operations, liquidity, net worth and 

financial condition. Furthermore, strategies we employ to manage and govern the risks associated with our use of models 

may not be effective or fully reliable. 

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.” 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 
61

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.

Changes in spreads could materially impact our results of operations, net worth and the fair value of our net assets.

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. Changes in market conditions, including changes in interest rates, liquidity, 

prepayment and default expectations, and the level of uncertainty in the market for a particular asset class may cause 

fluctuations in spreads. Changes in mortgage spreads have contributed to significant volatility in our financial results in 

certain periods, due to fluctuations in the estimated fair value of the financial instruments that we mark to market through our 

earnings, and this could occur again in a future period. A widening of mortgage spreads could cause significant fair value 

losses, and could adversely affect our near-term financial results and net worth. We do not actively manage or hedge our 

spread risk after we purchase mortgage assets, other than through asset monitoring and disposition.

Our business is subject to laws and regulations that restrict our activities and operations, which limit our ability to 

diversify our business and may prohibit us from undertaking activities that management believes would benefit our 

business. 

As a federally chartered corporation, we are subject to the limitations imposed by the Charter Act, extensive regulation, 

supervision and examination by FHFA and regulation by other federal agencies, including Treasury, HUD and the SEC. As a 

company under conservatorship, our primary regulator has management authority over us in its role as our conservator. We 

are also subject to other laws and regulations that affect our business, including those regarding taxation and privacy. 

The Charter Act defines our permissible business activities. For example, we may not originate mortgage loans or purchase 

single-family loans in excess of the conforming loan limits, and our business is limited to the U.S. housing finance sector. In 

addition, as described in a previous risk factor, our business activities are subject to significant restrictions as a result of the 

conservatorship and the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. As a result of these limitations on our ability to diversify 

our operations, our financial condition and results of operations depend almost entirely on conditions in a single sector of the 

U.S. economy, specifically, the U.S. housing market. Weak or unstable conditions in the housing market can therefore have a 

significant adverse effect on our results of operations, financial condition and net worth. 

Our business and financial results could be materially adversely affected by legal or regulatory proceedings.

We are a party to various claims and other legal proceedings. We also have been, and in the future may be, involved in 

government investigations. We may be required to establish accruals and to make substantial payments in the event of 

adverse judgments or settlements of any such claims, investigations or proceedings, which could have a material adverse 

effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth. Any legal proceeding or 

governmental investigation, even if resolved in our favor, could result in negative publicity or cause us to incur significant 

legal and other expenses. In addition, certain of our current and former employees are involved in legal proceedings for 

which they may be entitled to reimbursement by us for costs and expenses of the proceedings. 

Developments in, outcomes of, impacts of, and costs, expenses, settlements and judgments related to these legal proceedings 

and governmental investigations may differ from our expectations and exceed any amounts for which we have accrued or 

require adjustments to such accruals. In addition, responding to these matters could divert significant internal resources away 

from managing our business.
62

An active trading market in our equity securities may cease to exist, which would adversely affect the market price and 

liquidity of our common and preferred stock. 

Our common stock and preferred stock are now traded exclusively in the over-the-counter market. We cannot predict the 

actions of market makers, investors or other market participants, and can offer no assurances that the market for our securities 

will be stable. If there is no active trading market in our equity securities, the market price and liquidity of the securities will 

be adversely affected. 

Mortgage fraud could result in significant financial losses and harm to our reputation. 

We use a process of delegated underwriting in which lenders make specific representations and warranties about the 

characteristics of the mortgage loans we purchase and securitize. As a result, we do not independently verify most borrower 

information that is provided to us. This exposes us to the risk that one or more of the parties involved in a transaction (the 

borrower, seller, broker, appraiser, title agent, lender or servicer) will engage in fraud by misrepresenting facts about a 

mortgage loan. Similarly, we rely on delegated servicing of loans and use of a variety of external resources to manage our 

REO. We have experienced financial losses resulting from mortgage fraud, including institutional fraud perpetrated by 

counterparties. In the future, we may experience additional financial losses or reputational damage as a result of mortgage 

fraud. 

RISKS RELATING TO OUR INDUSTRY

Our business and financial results are affected by general economic conditions, particularly home prices and employment 

trends, and a deterioration of economic conditions or the financial markets may materially adversely affect our results of 

operations, net worth and financial condition.

Our business is significantly affected by the status of the U.S. economy, particularly home prices and employment trends. 

Although the U.S. economy has continued to gradually improve, economic growth and improvement in the housing market 

have been modest. A prolonged period of slow growth in the U.S. economy or any deterioration in general economic 

conditions or the financial markets could materially adversely affect our results of operations, net worth and financial 

condition. For example, if home prices decrease or the unemployment rate increases, it could result in significantly higher 

levels of credit losses and credit-related expense. 

Global economic conditions can also adversely affect our business and financial results. Changes or volatility in market 

conditions resulting from deterioration in or uncertainty regarding global economic conditions can adversely affect the value 

of our assets, which could materially adversely affect our results of operations, net worth and financial condition. For 

example, concerns about economic conditions in China resulted in a significant decline in interest rates in the third quarter of 

2015. This decline in interest rates contributed to the fair value losses on our derivatives in the third quarter of 2015. 

Global economic conditions also could negatively affect the credit performance of the loans in our book of business. For 

example, the decline in global oil prices is negatively affecting economic conditions in some areas of the United States with a 

high concentration of jobs related to oil production. Weaker economic conditions resulting from a sustained decline in oil 

prices could result in higher levels of delinquencies on the loans we own or guarantee in these areas, which could negatively 

affect our credit-related expense and credit losses in the future.

Volatility or uncertainty in global political conditions also can significantly affect economic conditions and the financial 

markets. We describe above the risks to our business posed by changes in interest rates and changes in spreads. In addition, as 

described above, future changes or disruptions in the financial markets could significantly change the amount, mix and cost 

of funds we obtain, as well as our liquidity position.

A decline in activity in the U.S. housing market or increasing interest rates could lower our business volumes.

Our business volume is affected by the rate of growth in total U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding and the size of the 

U.S. residential mortgage market. A decline in mortgage debt outstanding reduces the unpaid principal balance of mortgage 

loans available for us to securitize or purchase, which in turn could reduce our guaranty fee income and net interest income. 

Even if we were able to increase our share of the secondary mortgage market, it may not be sufficient to make up for a 

decline in the rate of growth in mortgage originations.

Mortgage interest rates also affect our business volume. Rising interest rates generally result in fewer mortgage originations, 

particularly for refinances. An increase in interest rates, particularly if the increase is sudden and steep, could significantly 

reduce our business volume. Significant reductions in our business volume could adversely affect our results of operations 

and financial condition. In December 2015, the Federal Reserve raised the target range for the federal funds rate for the first 
63

time since 2006, and noted that it expects that economic conditions will evolve in a manner that will warrant only gradual 

increases in the federal funds rate. However, the Federal Reserve may change its approach in the future. Moreover, the 

Federal Reserve’s federal funds rate path is not the only factor that affects long-term interest rates. Accordingly, our business 

remains subject to the risk of sudden and steep interest rate increases.

A reduction or end to the Federal Reserve’s acquisition of agency mortgage-backed securities could adversely affect our 

business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth. 

In recent years, the Federal Reserve has purchased a significant amount of mortgage-backed securities issued by us, Freddie 

Mac and Ginnie Mae. The Federal Reserve began to taper these purchases in January 2014 and concluded its asset purchase 

program in October 2014. Since concluding its asset purchase program, the Federal Reserve has maintained its existing 

policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency 

mortgage-backed securities; therefore, it has continued to purchase a significant amount of agency mortgage-backed 

securities. In a statement issued in January 2016, the Federal Reserve indicated that it anticipates maintaining its current 

reinvestment policy “until normalization of the level of the federal funds rate is well under way.” Any change in the Federal 

Reserve’s policy towards the reinvestment of principal payments of mortgage-backed securities, or possible future sales of 

mortgage-backed securities by the Federal Reserve, could result in increases in mortgage interest rates, adversely affect our 

business volume and reduce demand for Fannie Mae MBS, which could adversely affect our business, results of operations, 

financial condition, liquidity and net worth. 

Changing regulations applicable to U.S. banks could materially adversely affect demand by banks for our debt securities 

and Fannie Mae MBS in the future.

U.S. banking regulators have issued a number of new regulations in recent years, including regulations relating to capital 

requirements, liquidity requirements, stress testing and other matters. These new requirements could materially adversely 

affect demand by U.S. banks for our debt securities and Fannie Mae MBS in the future and could limit the ability of banks to 

create markets for our debt securities and Fannie Mae MBS, which could adversely affect the price of those securities and 

could have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth. For 

example, in September 2014, U.S. banking regulators issued a final regulation setting minimum liquidity standards for large 

U.S. banks generally in accordance with Basel III standards. Under the final rule, U.S. banks subject to the standards are 

required to hold a minimum level of high-quality liquid assets based on projections of their short-term cash needs. The debt 

and mortgage-related securities of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are permitted to count toward only up to 40% of the banks’

high-quality liquid asset requirement, and then only after applying a 15% discount to the market value of those securities. The 

final rule became effective January 1, 2015 and provides for a transition period. Banks subject to the rule were required to 

maintain a minimum liquidity coverage ratio of 80% beginning on January 1, 2015, which increased to 90% beginning on 

January 1, 2016 and will further increase to 100% beginning on January 1, 2017. U.S. banks currently hold large amounts of 

our outstanding debt and MBS securities, and prior U.S. banking regulations did not limit the amount of these securities that 

banks were permitted to count toward their liquidity requirements. Accordingly, the implementation of this rule could 

materially adversely affect demand by banks for Fannie Mae debt securities and Fannie Mae MBS in the future and could 

limit the ability of banks to create markets for our debt securities and Fannie Mae MBS.

The Dodd-Frank Act and regulatory changes in the financial services industry may negatively impact our business. 

The Dodd-Frank Act has significantly changed the regulation of the financial services industry. This legislation is affecting 

and will continue to affect many aspects of our business and could affect us in substantial and unforeseeable ways. The 

Dodd-Frank Act and related regulatory changes have required us to change certain business practices, limit the types of 

products we offer and incur additional costs. Additionally, implementation of this legislation has resulted in and will continue 

to result in increased supervision and more comprehensive regulation of our customers and counterparties in the financial 

services industry, which may have a significant impact on the business practices of our customers and counterparties, as well 

as on our counterparty credit risk. The Dodd-Frank Act’s impact on our customers’ and counterparties’ business practices 

could indirectly adversely affect our business. For example, if our customers reduce the amount of their mortgage 

originations, it would adversely affect the number of mortgages available for us to purchase or guarantee.

Examples of aspects of the Dodd-Frank Act and related regulatory changes that have affected us or may affect us in the future 

include: rules requiring the clearing of certain derivatives transactions and margin and capital rules for uncleared derivative 

trades, which impose additional costs on us; the CFPB’s “ability to repay” rule, which has limited the types of products we 

offer and could impact the volume of loans sold to us in the future; and the development of single-counterparty credit limit 

regulations, which could cause our customers to change their business practices. It is also possible that we could be 

designated as a systemically important nonbank financial company, although we have not received any notification of 
64

possible designation. If this were to occur, we would become subject to regulation by the Federal Reserve Board, which could 

impose stricter prudential standards on us.

In addition, the actions of Treasury, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, the SEC, the FDIC, the Federal Reserve 

and international central banking authorities directly or indirectly impact financial institutions’ cost of funds for lending, 

capital-raising and investment activities, which could increase our borrowing costs or make borrowing more difficult for us. 

Changes in monetary policy are beyond our control and difficult to anticipate. 

Overall, these legislative and regulatory changes could affect us in substantial and unforeseeable ways and could have a 

material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth. 

Legislative, regulatory or judicial actions could negatively impact our business, results of operations, financial condition 

or net worth. 

Legislative, regulatory or judicial actions at the federal, state or local level could negatively impact our business, results of 

operations, financial condition or net worth. Legislative, regulatory or judicial actions could affect us in a number of ways, 

including by imposing significant additional costs on us and diverting management attention or other resources. For example, 

we could be affected by legislative or regulatory changes that expand our or our servicers’ responsibility and liability for 

securing, maintaining or otherwise overseeing vacant properties prior to foreclosure, which could increase our costs. We also 

could be affected by state laws and court decisions granting new or expanded priority rights to homeowners associations over 

our mortgages, which could adversely affect our ability to recover our losses on affected loans. In addition, as described 

above, our business could be materially adversely affected by legislative and regulatory actions relating to housing finance 

reform or the financial services industry or by legal or regulatory proceedings.

The occurrence of a major natural or other disaster in the United States could negatively impact our credit losses and 

credit-related expenses, and could disrupt our business operations in the affected geographic area or nationally. 

We conduct our business in the residential and multifamily mortgage markets and own or guarantee the performance of 

mortgage loans throughout the United States. The occurrence of a major natural or environmental disaster, terrorist attack, 

cyber attack, pandemic, or similar event (a “major disruptive event”) in a regional geographic area of the United States could 

negatively impact our credit losses and credit-related expenses in the affected area or, depending on the nature of the event, 

nationally. 

The occurrence of a major disruptive event could negatively impact a geographic area in a number of different ways, 

depending on the nature of the event. A major disruptive event that either damages or destroys residential or multifamily real 

estate securing mortgage loans in our book of business or negatively impacts the ability of borrowers to continue to make 

principal and interest payments on mortgage loans in our book of business could increase our delinquency rates, default rates 

and average loan loss severity of our book of business in the affected region or regions, which could have a material adverse 

effect on our business, results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and net worth. While we attempt to create a 

geographically diverse mortgage credit book of business, there can be no assurance that a major disruptive event, depending 

on its magnitude, scope and nature, will not generate significant credit losses and credit-related expenses. 

In addition, as described in a risk factor above, although we have business continuity plans and facilities in place, the 

occurrence of a catastrophic event could overwhelm our recovery capabilities, which could materially adversely affect our 

ability to conduct our business and lead to financial losses.

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 

None.

Item 2. Properties

We own our principal office, which is located at 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC. We also own or lease nine 

additional office facilities in the Washington, DC area. The total square footage of our ten owned and leased facilities in the 

Washington, DC area is approximately 2,161,000 square feet.

We maintain approximately 691,000 square feet of office space in leased premises in Pasadena, California; Atlanta, Georgia; 

Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Dallas, Texas.

In January 2015, we entered into a lease for a future principal office in a building to be built at 1100 15th Street, NW, 

Washington, DC. The lease provides that the building will be delivered in phases in 2017 and 2018. Accordingly, we intend to 

sell our current principal office located at 3900 Wisconsin Ave, NW, Washington, DC, as well as two other Washington, DC 

office facilities.
65

Item 3. Legal Proceedings

This item describes our material legal proceedings. We describe additional material legal proceedings in “Note 18, 

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 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. If certain of these matters are determined against us, it could have a material adverse effect on our results of 

operations, liquidity and financial condition, including our net worth.

FHFA Private-Label Mortgage-Related Securities Litigation 

In the third quarter of 2011, FHFA, as conservator, filed 16 lawsuits on behalf of both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac against 

various financial institutions, their officers and affiliated and unaffiliated underwriters that were responsible for marketing 

and selling private-label mortgage-related securities to us. Fourteen of these lawsuits were resolved during 2013 and 2014, 

and two remain pending.

These two remaining lawsuits, which were both filed on September 2, 2011, seek to recover losses we and Freddie Mac 

incurred on the private-label mortgage-related securities the defendants sold to us and Freddie Mac. The lawsuits allege that 

the defendants violated federal and state securities laws by making material misstatements and omissions regarding the 

characteristics of the loans underlying the securities in the offering documents for the securities that were sold to Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac. The complaints seek, among other things, rescission and recovery of consideration paid for the securities at 

issue in the lawsuits and interest.

One of the remaining lawsuits is against Nomura Holding America Inc., RBS Securities Inc. and certain related entities and 

individuals. On May 15, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York entered a final judgment in the 

Nomura action, holding the defendants liable for claims brought under state and federal securities laws. On June 10, 2015, 

defendants in the Nomura action appealed this judgment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The judgment, 

if affirmed in full, requires defendants to pay Fannie Mae $27 million and Freddie Mac $779 million, and requires Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac to deliver the securities at issue in the complaint to the defendants. In addition, if the judgment is 

affirmed in full, defendants are required to pay $33 million to cover attorneys’ fees and costs for both us and Freddie Mac.

The other remaining lawsuit is against The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC and certain related entities and individuals, 

and is pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut. 

Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements Litigation

Between June 2013 and February 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 and the U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of Illinois against the United States, Treasury and/or 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, as well as to FHFA’s decision to require Fannie 

Mae and Freddie Mac to draw funds from Treasury in order to pay dividends to Treasury during conservatorship. 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. The matters where Fannie Mae is a named defendant are described 

below or in “Note 18, Commitments and Contingencies.”
66

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 to 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.

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, et al., 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.

LIBOR Lawsuit

On October 31, 2013, Fannie Mae filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York against 

Barclays Bank PLC, UBS AG, The Royal Bank of Scotland Group PLC, The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC, Deutsche Bank 

AG, Credit Suisse Group AG, Credit Suisse International, Bank of America Corp., Bank of America, N.A., Citigroup Inc., 

Citibank, N.A., J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., Coöperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank 

B.A., the British Bankers Association (the “BBA”) and BBA LIBOR Ltd. alleging they manipulated LIBOR. On October 6, 

2014, Fannie Mae filed an amended complaint alleging, among other things, that the banks submitted false borrowing costs 

to the BBA in order to suppress LIBOR. The amended complaint seeks compensatory and punitive damages based on claims 

for breach of contract, breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, fraud and conspiracy to 

commit fraud. The defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit on November 5, 2014. On August 4, 2015, the court 

decided defendants’ motions to dismiss, granting in part and denying in part the relief sought. The court ruled that Fannie 

Mae had adequately pled its fraud, breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against the defendants, but that the 

applicable statute of limitations periods precluded some of our contract and unjust enrichment claims against the defendants 

from proceeding. In addition, the court dismissed the BBA and Credit Suisse Group AG from the lawsuit. 

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures

None.
67

PART II

Item 5. Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity 

Securities

Our common stock is traded in the over-the-counter market and quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board under the ticker symbol 

“FNMA.” The transfer agent and registrar for our common stock is Computershare Trust Company, N.A., P.O. Box 30170, 

College Station, TX 77842-3170. 

Common Stock Data 

The following table displays, for the periods indicated, the high and low prices per share of our common stock as reported in 

the Bloomberg Financial Markets service. These prices represent high and low trade prices. No dividends were declared on 

shares of our common stock during the periods indicated.

Quarter High Low

2014

First Quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6.35 $ 2.76

Second Quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.80 3.57

Third Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.64 2.54

Fourth Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.61 1.43

2015

First Quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3.51 $ 2.05

Second Quarter. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.96 2.27

Third Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.72 2.00

Fourth Quarter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.70 1.58

Dividends 

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 directs 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 ultimately require the payment of our entire net worth to Treasury. 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.”

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 the 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. 
68

Holders 

As of January 31, 2016, we had approximately 12,000 registered holders of record of our common stock. In addition, as of 

January 31, 2016, Treasury held a warrant giving it the right to purchase shares of our common stock equal to 79.9% of the 

total number of shares of our common stock outstanding on a fully diluted basis on the date of exercise. 

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 December 31, 2015, we did not issue any equity 

securities.

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 fourth quarter of 2015.
69

Item 6. Selected Financial Data

The selected consolidated financial data displayed below are summarized from our results of operations for the five-year 

period ended December 31, 2015, as well as selected consolidated balance sheet data as of the end of each year within this 

five-year period. This data should be reviewed in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and related 

notes and with the MD&A included in this annual report on Form 10-K.

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

(Dollars in millions)

Statement of operations data:

Net revenues(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 22,757 $ 25,855 $ 26,334 $ 22,988 $ 20,444

Net income (loss) attributable to Fannie

Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,954 14,208 83,963 17,224 (16,855)

New business purchase data:

New business purchases(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . $515,541 $409,834 $759,535 $867,387 $580,574

Performance ratios:

Net interest yield(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.68 % 0.63 % 0.70 % 0.68 % 0.60 %

Credit loss ratio (in basis points)(4)

. . . . . . . 35.0 bps 19.4 bps 14.7 bps 48.2 bps 61.3 bps

As of December 31,

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

(Dollars in millions)

Balance sheet data:

Investments in securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 60,138 $ 62,158 $ 68,939 $ 103,876 $ 151,780

Mortgage loans, net of allowance(5)

. . . . . . . . . . 3,019,644 3,019,494 3,026,240 2,949,406 2,898,621

Total assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,221,917 3,248,176 3,270,108 3,222,422 3,211,484

Short-term debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,950 106,572 74,449 108,716 151,725

Long-term debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,125,721 3,115,583 3,160,074 3,080,801 3,038,147

Total liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,217,858 3,244,456 3,260,517 3,215,198 3,216,055

Senior preferred stock. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117,149 117,149 117,149 117,149 112,578

Preferred stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,130 19,130 19,130 19,130 19,130

Total Fannie Mae stockholders’ equity (deficit). 4,030 3,680 9,541 7,183 (4,624)

Net worth surplus (deficit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,059 3,720 9,591 7,224 (4,571)
70

As of December 31,

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

(Dollars in millions)

Book of business data:

Mortgage credit book of business(6)

. . . $ 3,065,955 $3,091,102 $3,136,765 $3,116,842 $3,127,634

Guaranty book of business(7)

. . . . . . . . 3,043,141 3,056,219 3,090,538 3,039,457 3,037,549

Credit quality:

Total troubled debt restructurings on

accrual status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 140,964 $ 145,294 $ 141,227 $ 136,064 $ 108,797

Total nonaccrual loans(8)

. . . . . . . . . . . 49,412 64,959 83,606 114,833 143,152

Total loss reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,774 38,173 47,290 62,629 76,938

Total loss reserves as a percentage of

total guaranty book of business . . . . 0.95 % 1.25 % 1.53 % 2.06 % 2.53 %

Total loss reserves as a percentage of

total nonaccrual loans. . . . . . . . . . . . 58.23 58.76 56.56 54.54 53.75

__________

(1) Consists of net interest income and fee and other income.

(2) 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. 

(3) Calculated based on net interest income for the reporting period divided by the average balance of total interest-earning assets during 

the period, expressed as a percentage.

(4) Consists of (a) charge-offs, net of recoveries and (b) foreclosed property expense (income) for the reporting period (adjusted to exclude 

the impact of fair value losses resulting from credit-impaired loans acquired from MBS trusts) divided by the average guaranty book of 

business during the period, expressed in basis points. See “MD&A—Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related Income 

(Expense)—Credit Loss Performance Metrics” for a discussion of how our credit loss metrics are calculated. Our credit loss ratio in 

2015 was impacted by charge-offs of (1) $1.8 billion in loans held for investment and $724 million in preforeclosure property taxes and 

insurance receivable that we recognized on January 1, 2015 upon our adoption of the Advisory Bulletin and (2) $1.1 billion in accrued 

interest receivable that we recognized on January 1, 2015 upon our adoption of a change in accounting policy related to loans placed on 

nonaccrual status. See “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” for additional information.

(5) Mortgage loans consist solely of domestic residential real-estate mortgages.

(6) Refers to the sum of the unpaid principal balance of: (a) mortgage loans of Fannie Mae; (b) mortgage loans underlying Fannie Mae 

MBS; (c) non-Fannie Mae mortgage-related securities held in our retained mortgage portfolio; and (d) other credit enhancements that 

we provide on mortgage assets.

(7) Reflects mortgage credit book of business less non-Fannie Mae mortgage-related securities held in our retained mortgage portfolio for 

which we do not provide a guaranty.

(8) We generally classify single-family loans as nonaccrual when the payment of principal or interest on the loan is 60 days or more past 

due. See “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” for more information about our policies on nonaccrual loans.
71

Item 7. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

You should read this MD&A in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2015 and related 

notes to the consolidated financial statements, and with “Business—Executive Summary.” Please also see “Glossary of 

Terms Used in This Report.”

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

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

information on the forward-looking statements in this report and “Risk Factors” for a discussion of factors that could cause 

our actual results to differ, perhaps materially, from our forward-looking statements. 

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 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.”

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” 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.

Fair Value Measurement

The use of fair value to measure our assets and liabilities is fundamental to our financial statements and our fair value 

measurement is a critical accounting estimate because we account for and record a portion of our assets and liabilities at fair 

value. In determining fair value, we use various valuation techniques. We describe the valuation techniques and inputs used 

to determine the fair value of our assets and liabilities and disclose their carrying value and fair value in “Note 17, Fair 

Value.” 

The fair value accounting rules provide a three-level fair value hierarchy for classifying financial instruments. This hierarchy 

is based on whether the inputs to the valuation techniques used to measure fair value are observable or unobservable. Each 

asset or liability is assigned to a level based on the lowest level of any input that is significant to its fair value measurement. 

The three levels of the fair value hierarchy are described below: 

Level 1: Quoted prices (unadjusted) in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. 

Level 2: Observable market-based inputs, other than quoted prices in active markets for identical assets or liabilities. 

Level 3: Unobservable inputs. 

The majority of the financial instruments that we report at fair value in our consolidated financial statements fall within the 

Level 2 category and are valued primarily utilizing inputs and assumptions that are observable in the marketplace, that can be 

derived from observable market data or that can be corroborated by recent trading activity of similar instruments with similar 

characteristics. For example, we generally request non-binding prices from at least three independent pricing services to 

estimate the fair value of our trading and available-for-sale securities at an individual security level. We use the average of 

these prices to determine the fair value. 

In the absence of such information or if we are not able to corroborate these prices by other available, relevant market 

information, we estimate their fair values based on single source quotations from brokers or dealers or by using internal 

calculations or discounted cash flow techniques that incorporate inputs, such as prepayment rates, discount rates and 

delinquency, default and cumulative loss expectations, that are implied by market prices for similar securities and collateral 

structure types. Because these valuation techniques rely on significant unobservable inputs, the fair value estimation is 

classified as Level 3. The process for determining fair value using unobservable inputs is generally more subjective and 

involves a high degree of management judgment and assumptions. These assumptions may have a significant effect on our 
72

estimates of fair value, and the use of different assumptions as well as changes in market conditions could have a material 

effect on our results of operations or financial condition. 

Fair Value Hierarchy—Level 3 Assets and Liabilities

The assets and liabilities that we have classified as Level 3 consist primarily of financial instruments for which there is 

limited market activity and therefore little or no price transparency. As a result, the valuation techniques that we use to 

estimate the fair value of Level 3 instruments involve significant unobservable inputs, which generally are more subjective 

and involve a high degree of management judgment and assumptions. Our Level 3 assets and liabilities consist of certain 

mortgage-backed securities and residual interests, certain mortgage loans, acquired property, certain long-term debt 

arrangements and certain highly structured, complex derivative instruments. We provide a detailed discussion of our Level 3 

assets and liabilities, including the valuation techniques and significant unobservable inputs used to measure the fair value of 

these instruments, in “Note 17, Fair Value.”

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 

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. We provide a detailed discussion 

of our valuation control processes in “Note 17, Fair Value.”

Combined Loss Reserves 

Our combined loss reserves consist of the following components: 

• Allowance for loan losses 

• Reserve for guaranty losses 

These components can be further allocated into our single-family and multifamily loss reserves.

We maintain an allowance for loan losses for loans classified as held for investment, including both loans we hold in our 

portfolio and loans held in consolidated Fannie Mae MBS trusts. We maintain a reserve for guaranty losses for loans held in 

unconsolidated Fannie Mae MBS trusts we guarantee and loans we have guaranteed under long-term standby commitments 

and other credit enhancements we have provided. These amounts, which we collectively refer to as our combined loss 

reserves, represent probable losses incurred related to loans in our guaranty book of business, including concessions granted 

to borrowers upon modifications of their loans, as of the balance sheet date.

The allowance for loan losses is a valuation allowance that reflects an estimate of incurred credit losses related to our loans 

held for investment. The reserve for guaranty losses is a liability account in our consolidated balance sheets that reflects an 

estimate of incurred credit losses related to our guaranty to each unconsolidated Fannie Mae MBS trust that we will 

supplement amounts received by the Fannie Mae MBS trust as required to permit timely payments of principal and interest 

on the related Fannie Mae MBS. As a result, the guaranty reserve considers not only the principal and interest due on the loan 

at the current balance sheet date, but also an estimate of any additional interest payments due to the trust from the current 

balance sheet date until the point of loan acquisition or foreclosure. Our loss reserves consist of a specific loss reserve for 

individually impaired loans and a collective loss reserve for all other loans. 

We have an established process, using analytical tools, benchmarks and management judgment, to determine our loss 

reserves. Our process for determining our loss reserves is complex and involves significant management judgment. Although 

our loss reserve process benefits from extensive historical loan performance data, this process is subject to risks and 

uncertainties, including a reliance on historical loss information that may not be representative of current conditions. We 

continually monitor prepayment, delinquency, modification, default and loss severity trends and periodically make changes in 

our historically developed assumptions and estimates as necessary to better reflect present conditions, including current 

trends in borrower risk and/or general economic trends, changes in risk management practices, and changes in public policy 

and the regulatory environment. We also consider the recoveries that we expect to receive on mortgage insurance and other 

loan-specific credit enhancements entered into contemporaneously with and in contemplation of a guaranty or loan purchase 

transaction, as such recoveries reduce the severity of the loss associated with defaulted loans. 

We provide more detailed information on our accounting for the allowance for loan losses in “Note 1, Summary of 

Significant Accounting Policies.”
73

Single-Family Loss Reserves 

We establish a specific single-family loss reserve for individually impaired loans, which includes loans we restructure in 

TDRs, certain nonperforming loans in MBS trusts and acquired credit-impaired loans that have been further impaired 

subsequent to acquisition. The single-family loss reserve for individually impaired loans represents the majority of our singlefamily loss reserves due to the high volume of restructured loans. We typically measure impairment based on the difference 

between our recorded investment in the loan and the present value of the estimated cash flows we expect to receive, which 

we calculate using the effective interest rate of the original loan or the effective interest rate at acquisition for an acquired 

credit-impaired loan. However, when foreclosure is probable on an individually impaired loan, we measure impairment based 

on the difference between our recorded investment in the loan and the fair value of the underlying property, adjusted for the 

estimated discounted costs to sell the property and estimated insurance or other proceeds we expect to receive.

We establish a collective single-family loss reserve for all other single-family loans in our single-family guaranty book of 

business using a model that estimates the probability of default of loans to derive a loss reserve estimate given multiple 

factors such as: origination year, mark-to-market LTV ratio, delinquency status and loan product type. The loss severity 

estimates we use in determining our loss reserves reflect current available information on actual events and conditions as of 

each balance sheet date, including current home prices. Our loss severity estimates do not incorporate assumptions about 

future changes in home prices. We do, however, use recent regional historical sales and appraisal information, including the 

sales of our own foreclosed properties, to develop our loss severity estimates for all loan categories.

Multifamily Loss Reserves 

We establish a collective multifamily 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. Management may also apply judgment to adjust the 

loss factors derived from our models, taking into consideration model imprecision and specific, known events, such as 

current credit conditions, that may affect the credit quality of our multifamily loan portfolio but are not yet reflected in our 

model-generated loss factors.

We establish a specific multifamily loss reserve for multifamily loans that we determine are individually impaired. We 

identify multifamily loans for evaluation for impairment through a credit risk assessment process. As part of this assessment 

process, we stratify multifamily loans into different internal risk categories based on the credit risk inherent in each individual 

loan and management judgment. We categorize loan credit risk, taking into consideration available operating statements and 

expected cash flows from the underlying property, the estimated value of the property, the historical loan payment experience 

and current relevant market conditions that may impact credit quality. If we conclude that a multifamily loan is impaired, we 

measure the impairment based on the difference between our recorded investment in the loan and the fair value of the 

underlying property less the estimated discounted costs to sell the property and any lender loss sharing or other proceeds we 

expect to receive. When a multifamily loan is deemed individually impaired because we have modified it, we measure the 

impairment based on the difference between our recorded investment in the loan and the present value of expected cash flows 

discounted at the loan’s original interest rate unless foreclosure is probable, at which time we measure impairment the same 

way we measure it for other individually impaired multifamily loans.

CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

This section provides a discussion of our consolidated results of operations for the periods indicated and should be read 

together with our consolidated financial statements, including the accompanying notes.
74

Table 7: Summary of Consolidated Results of Operations

For the Year Ended December 31, Variance

2015 2014 2013 2015 vs. 2014 2014 vs. 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Net interest income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 21,409 $ 19,968 $ 22,404 $ 1,441 $ (2,436)

Fee and other income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,348 5,887 3,930 (4,539) 1,957

Net revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,757 25,855 26,334 (3,098) (479)

Investment gains, net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,336 936 1,127 400 (191)

Fair value gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,767) (4,833) 2,959 3,066 (7,792)

Administrative expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3,050) (2,777) (2,545) (273) (232)

Credit-related income (expense):

Benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795 3,964 8,949 (3,169) (4,985)

Foreclosed property income (expense) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,629) (142) 2,839 (1,487) (2,981)

Total credit-related income (expense) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (834) 3,822 11,788 (4,656) (7,966)

Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011

(“TCCA”) fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,621) (1,375) (1,001) (246) (374)

Other expenses, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (613) (478) (95) (135) (383)

Income before federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,208 21,150 38,567 (4,942) (17,417)

Benefit (provision) for federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5,253) (6,941) 45,415 1,688 (52,356)

Net income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,955 14,209 83,982 (3,254) (69,773)

Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest . . . . . (1) (1) (19) — 18

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10,954 $ 14,208 $ 83,963 $ (3,254) $ (69,755)

Total comprehensive income attributable to Fannie Mae . . . . . $ 10,628 $ 14,738 $ 84,782 $ (4,110) $ (70,044)

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.

Table 8 displays an analysis of our net interest income, average balances, and related yields earned on assets and incurred on 

liabilities for the periods indicated. 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 9 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.
75

Table 8: Analysis of Net Interest Income and Yield

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Average

Balance

Interest

Income/

Expense

Average

Rates

Earned/

Paid

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 . . . . $ 257,870 $ 9,728 3.77% $ 286,042 $ 10,285 3.60% $ 326,399 $ 12,790 3.92%

Mortgage loans of consolidated

trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,794,050 97,971 3.51 2,769,418 101,835 3.68 2,710,838 101,448 3.74

Total mortgage loans(1)

. . . . . . . . . 3,051,920 107,699 3.53 3,055,460 112,120 3.67 3,037,237 114,238 3.76

Mortgage-related securities . . . . . . . 109,749 4,880 4.45 143,934 6,713 4.66 203,514 9,330 4.58

Elimination of Fannie Mae MBS

held in retained mortgage

portfolio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (76,250) (3,351) 4.39 (98,778) (4,572) 4.63 (133,243) (6,236) 4.68

Total mortgage-related securities,

net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,499 1,529 4.56 45,156 2,141 4.74 70,271 3,094 4.40

Non-mortgage-related securities(2)

. . 46,498 71 0.15 35,184 34 0.10 41,484 42 0.10

Federal funds sold and securities

purchased under agreements to

resell or similar arrangements . . . 31,173 60 0.19 33,631 32 0.10 61,644 68 0.11

Advances to lenders. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,063 83 2.04 3,454 78 2.26 5,115 107 2.09

Total interest-earning assets . . . . . . . . . . $3,167,153 $109,442 3.46% $3,172,885 $114,405 3.61% $3,215,751 $117,549 3.66%

Interest-bearing liabilities:

Short-term funding debt. . . . . . . . . . $ 88,885 $ 145 0.16% $ 86,866 $ 92 0.11% $ 95,098 $ 128 0.13%

Long-term funding debt . . . . . . . . . . 339,181 7,561 2.23 398,876 8,508 2.13 498,735 10,263 2.06

Total funding debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . 428,066 7,706 1.80 485,742 8,600 1.77 593,833 10,391 1.75

Debt securities of consolidated

trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,845,123 83,678 2.94 2,824,638 90,409 3.20 2,783,622 90,990 3.27

Elimination of Fannie Mae MBS

held in retained mortgage

portfolio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (76,250) (3,351) 4.39 (98,778) (4,572) 4.63 (133,243) (6,236) 4.68

Total debt securities of

consolidated trusts held by

third parties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,768,873 80,327 2.90 2,725,860 85,837 3.15 2,650,379 84,754 3.20

Total interest-bearing liabilities . . . . . . . $3,196,939 $ 88,033 2.75% $3,211,602 $ 94,437 2.94% $3,244,212 $ 95,145 2.93%

Net interest income/net interest yield . . . $ 21,409 0.68% $ 19,968 0.63% $ 22,404 0.70%

As of December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Selected benchmark interest rates:

3-month LIBOR. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.61 % 0.26 % 0.25 %

2-year swap rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.18 0.90 0.49

5-year swap rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.74 1.77 1.79

10-year swap rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.19 2.28 3.09

30-year Fannie Mae MBS par coupon rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.00 2.83 3.61

__________

(1) Average balance includes mortgage loans on nonaccrual status. Interest income on nonaccrual mortgage loans is recognized when cash 

is received. Interest income not recognized for loans on nonaccrual status was $1.6 billion, $1.8 billion and $2.8 billion for the years 

ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Effective January 1, 2015, we changed our policy for the treatment of interest 

previously accrued, but not collected, at the date loans are placed on nonaccrual status. See “Note 1, Summary of Significant 

Accounting Policies” for information on this policy change. 

(2) Includes cash equivalents.
76

Table 9: Rate/Volume Analysis of Changes in Net Interest Income

2015 vs. 2014 2014 vs. 2013

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (557) $ (1,046) $ 489 $ (2,505) $ (1,503) $ (1,002)

Mortgage loans of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3,864) 899 (4,763) 387 2,171 (1,784)

Total mortgage loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4,421) (147) (4,274) (2,118) 668 (2,786)

Total mortgage-related securities, net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (612) (532) (80) (953) (1,180) 227

Non-mortgage-related securities(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 13 24 (8) (6) (2)

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to

resell or similar arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 (2) 30 (36) (28) (8)

Advances to lenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 13 (8) (29) (37) 8

Total interest income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (4,963) $ (655) $ (4,308) $ (3,144) $ (583) $ (2,561)

Interest expense:

Short-term funding debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 53 $ 2 $ 51 $ (36) $ (10) $ (26)

Long-term funding debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (947) (1,317) 370 (1,755) (2,118) 363

Total funding debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (894) (1,315) 421 (1,791) (2,128) 337

Total debt securities of consolidated trusts held by third parties. . (5,510) 1,651 (7,161) 1,083 2,925 (1,842)

Total interest expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (6,404) $ 336 $ (6,740) $ (708) $ 797 $ (1,505)

Net interest income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,441 $ (991) $ 2,432 $ (2,436) $ (1,380) $ (1,056)

__________

(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 and net interest yield increased in 2015 compared with 2014 due to an increase in amortization income as 

a lower interest rate environment in the first half of 2015 increased prepayments on mortgage loans of consolidated trusts, 

which accelerated the amortization of cost basis adjustments on the loans and related debt. Higher guaranty fee income also 

contributed to the increase in net interest income as loans with higher guaranty fees became a larger part of our guaranty book 

of business in 2015. The increase in net interest income was partially offset by 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 15% lower in 2015 than in 2014. The increase in net interest yield was partially offset by 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.

Net interest income decreased in 2014 compared with 2013, 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 2014 than in 2013. 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 2014. Net interest 

yield decreased in 2014 compared with 2013 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.

We initially recognize mortgage loans and debt of consolidated trusts in our consolidated balance sheets at fair value. We 

recognize the difference between: (1) the initial fair value of the consolidated trust’s mortgage loans and debt and (2) the 

unpaid principal balance of these mortgage loans and debt as cost basis adjustments in our consolidated balance sheets. We 

amortize cost basis adjustments, including premiums and discounts on mortgage loans and securities, as a yield adjustment 

over the contractual life of the loan or security as a component of net interest income. Net unamortized premiums on debt of 

consolidated trusts exceeded net unamortized premiums on the related mortgage loans of consolidated trusts by $31.3 billion

as of December 31, 2015, compared with $29.3 billion as of December 31, 2014. This net premium position represents 

deferred revenue, which is amortized within net interest income. This deferred revenue primarily relates to loan level pricing 

adjustments we charge at the time of acquisition and other upfront payments we receive from lenders to adjust the monthly 
77

contractual guaranty fee rate on Fannie Mae MBS so that the pass-through coupon rate on the MBS is in a tradable increment 

of a whole or half percent. 

We had $11.8 billion in net unamortized discounts and other cost basis adjustments on mortgage loans of Fannie Mae 

included in our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015, compared with $13.0 billion as of December 31, 2014. 

These discounts and other cost basis adjustments were primarily recorded upon the acquisition of credit-impaired loans and 

the extent to which we may record them as income in future periods will be based on the actual performance of the loans.

For a discussion of the interest income from the assets we have purchased and the interest expense from the debt we have 

issued, see the discussion of our net interest income in “Business Segment Results—Capital Markets Group Results.” 

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 2015 compared with 2014 primarily due to higher revenue recognized in 2014 as a result of 

settlement agreements resolving certain lawsuits relating to PLS sold to us. Starting in June 2015, we eliminated fees charged 

to customers for using our proprietary Desktop Underwriter and Desktop Originator systems, which is expected to allow 

more lenders to access these systems in their underwriting process. The elimination of these fees resulted in lower technology 

fees in 2015 compared with 2014 and we expect it to further reduce our technology fees in 2016 as compared with 2015.

Fee and other income was higher in 2014 compared with 2013 primarily due to an increase in income recognized as a result 

of settlement agreements resolving certain lawsuits relating to PLS sold to us.

Investment Gains, Net

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

gains and losses from securitizations, gains and losses recognized on the consolidation and deconsolidation of securities, and 

net other-than-temporary impairments recognized on our investments. Investment gains increased in 2015 compared with 

2014 primarily due to higher sales volume of non-agency mortgage-related securities in 2015. 

Investment gains decreased in 2014 compared with 2013 primarily due to a significantly lower volume of sales of nonagency mortgage-related securities in 2014 as compared with 2013. See “Business Segment Results—The Capital Markets 

Group’s Mortgage Portfolio” and “Consolidated Balance Sheet Analysis—Investments in Securities” for additional 

information on our mortgage-related securities portfolio.

Fair Value Gains (Losses), Net

Table 10 displays the components of our fair value gains and losses.

Table 10: Fair Value Gains (Losses), Net

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

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

Net contractual interest expense accruals on interest rate swaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (960) $ (1,062) $ (767)

Net change in fair value during the period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (160) (3,562) 3,546

Total risk management derivatives fair value gains (losses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,120) (4,624) 2,779

Mortgage commitment derivatives fair value gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (393) (1,140) 501

Total derivatives fair value gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,513) (5,764) 3,280

Trading securities gains (losses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (368) 485 260

Other, net(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 446 (581)

Fair value gains (losses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (1,767) $ (4,833) $ 2,959

_________

(1) Consists of debt fair value gains (losses), net, which includes gains (losses) on CAS; debt foreign exchange gains (losses), net; and 

mortgage loans fair value gains (losses), net.

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 
78

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 our outstanding debt of Fannie Mae. Some of these financial instruments in our net portfolio are 

not recorded at fair value in our 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.

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 duration risk, which includes prepayment risk. 

We purchase option-based risk management derivatives to economically hedge prepayment risk. In cases where options 

obtained through callable debt issuances are not needed for risk management derivative purposes, we may sell options in the 

over-the-counter derivatives market in order to offset the options obtained in the callable debt. Our principal purpose in using 

derivatives is to manage our aggregate interest rate risk profile within prescribed risk parameters. We generally use only 

derivatives that are relatively liquid and straightforward to value. We consider the cost of derivatives used in our management 

of interest rate risk to be an inherent part of the cost of funding and hedging our mortgage investments and economically 

similar to the interest expense that we recognize on the debt we issue to fund our mortgage investments. 

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

Instruments.”

The primary factors that may affect the fair value of our risk management derivatives include the following: 

• Changes in interest rates: Our derivatives, in combination with our issuances of debt securities, are intended to 

offset changes in the fair value of our mortgage assets. Mortgage assets tend to increase in value when interest rates 

decrease and, conversely, decrease in value when interest rates rise. Pay-fixed swaps decrease in value and receivefixed swaps increase in value as swap rates decrease (with the opposite being true when swap rates increase). 

Because the composition of our pay-fixed and receive-fixed derivatives varies across the yield curve, different yield 

curve changes (e.g., parallel, steepening or flattening) will generate different gains and losses.

• Changes in our derivative activity: As interest rates change, we are likely to rebalance our portfolio to manage our 

interest rate exposure. As interest rates decrease, expected mortgage prepayments are likely to increase, which 

reduces the duration of our mortgage investments. In this scenario, we generally will rebalance our existing portfolio 

to manage this risk by adding receive-fixed swaps, which shortens the duration of our liabilities. Conversely, when 

interest rates increase and the duration of our mortgage assets increases, we are likely to add pay-fixed swaps, which 

have the effect of extending the duration of our liabilities. We use derivatives to rebalance our portfolio when the 

duration of our mortgage assets changes as the result of mortgage purchases or sales. We also use foreign-currency 

swaps to manage the foreign exchange impact of our foreign currency-denominated debt issuances. 

• Implied interest rate volatility: Our derivatives portfolio includes option-based derivatives, which we purchase to 

economically hedge the prepayment option embedded in our mortgage investments and sell to offset the options 

obtained through callable debt issuances when those options are not needed for risk management purposes. A key 

variable in estimating the fair value of option-based derivatives is implied volatility, which reflects the market’s 

expectation of the magnitude of future changes in interest rates. Assuming all other factors are held equal, including 

interest rates, a decrease in implied volatility would reduce the fair value of our purchased options and an increase in 

implied volatility would increase the fair value of our purchased options, while having the opposite effect on the 

options that we have sold. 

• Time value of purchased options: Intrinsic value and time value are the two primary components of an option’s 

price. The intrinsic value is determined by the amount by which the market rate exceeds or is below the exercise, or 

strike rate, such that the option is in-the-money. The time value of an option is the amount by which the price of an 

option exceeds its intrinsic value. Time decay refers to the diminishing value of an option over time as less time 

remains to exercise the option. 

We recognized risk management derivative fair value losses in 2015 and 2014 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 year. We recognized risk management 

derivative fair value gains in 2013 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 year.
79

Because risk management derivatives are an important part of our interest rate risk management strategy, it is important to 

evaluate the impact of our derivatives in the context of our interest rate risk profile and in conjunction with the other mark-tomarket gains and losses presented in Table 10. For additional information on our use of derivatives to manage interest rate 

risk, see “Risk Management—Market Risk Management, Including Interest Rate Risk Management—Interest Rate Risk 

Management.” 

Mortgage Commitment Derivatives Fair Value Gains (Losses), Net

Certain commitments to purchase or sell mortgage-related securities and to purchase single-family mortgage loans are 

generally accounted for as derivatives. For open mortgage commitment derivatives, we include changes in their fair value in 

our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. When derivative purchase commitments settle, we 

include the fair value of the commitment on the settlement date in the cost basis of the loan or security we purchase. When 

derivative commitments to sell securities settle, we include the fair value of the commitment on the settlement date in the cost 

basis of the security we sell. Purchases of securities issued by our consolidated MBS trusts are treated as extinguishments of 

debt; we recognize the fair value of the commitment on the settlement date as a component of debt extinguishment gains and 

losses. Sales of securities issued by our consolidated MBS trusts are treated as issuances of consolidated debt; we recognize 

the fair value of the commitment on the settlement date as a component of debt in the cost basis of the debt issued.

We recognized fair value losses on our mortgage commitments in 2015 and 2014 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. We 

recognized fair value gains on our mortgage commitments in 2013 primarily due to gains on commitments to sell mortgagerelated securities driven by a decrease in prices as interest rates increased during the commitment period.

Trading Securities Gains (Losses), Net

Losses from trading securities in 2015 were primarily driven by lower pricing on Fannie Mae MBS backed by PLS, which 

we refer to as “wraps.”

Gains from trading securities in 2014 were primarily driven by higher prices on our trading investments resulting from lower 

long-term interest rates, in addition to a narrowing of credit spreads on PLS.

Gains from trading securities in 2013 were primarily driven by higher prices on Alt-A and subprime PLS due to narrowing of 

credit spreads on these securities, as well as improvements in the credit outlook of certain financial guarantors of these 

securities. These gains were partially offset by losses on commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) and agency 

securities due to lower prices resulting from higher interest rates.

Administrative Expenses

Administrative expenses increased in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily due to the recognition of expenses related to the 

settlement of our defined benefit pension plan obligations. We transferred plan assets to an annuity provider and distributed 

lump sum payments to participants. 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 consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income for the year 

ended December 31, 2015. We expect administrative expenses to be lower in 2016 compared with 2015.

Administrative expenses increased in 2014 compared with 2013 driven by costs related to the execution of FHFA’s 2014 

conservatorship scorecard objectives and additional related initiatives. These costs more than offset reductions in ongoing 

operating costs.

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).

Provision (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 completion of a short sale, we recognize a charge-off against our loss reserves. 
80

Additionally, we record charge-offs pursuant to the Advisory Bulletin and 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 11 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 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 11 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.” 

Table 11: Total Loss Reserves

As of December 31,

2015 2014

(Dollars in millions)

Allowance for loan losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $27,951 $35,541

Reserve for guaranty losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 639 1,246

Combined loss reserves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,590 36,787

Other(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 1,386

Total loss reserves. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,774 38,173

Fair value losses previously recognized on acquired credit impaired loans(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,083 9,864

Total loss reserves and fair value losses previously recognized on acquired credit-impaired loans . . . . $36,857 $48,037

__________

(1) Includes allowance for preforeclosure property taxes and insurance receivable. As of December 31, 2014, the balance also includes 

allowance for accrued interest receivable. Effective January 1, 2015, we charged off accrued interest receivable associated with loans 

on nonaccrual status and eliminated the related allowance in connection with our change in accounting policy related to the treatment of 

interest previously accrued, but not collected, at the date that loans are placed on nonaccrual status. See “Note 1, Summary of 

Significant Accounting Policies” for additional information. 

(2) Represents the fair value losses on loans purchased out of unconsolidated MBS trusts reflected in our consolidated balance sheets.
81

Table 12: Changes in Combined Loss Reserves

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

(Dollars in millions)

Changes in combined loss reserves:

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 36,787 $ 45,295 $ 60,026 $ 73,150 $ 61,879

Provision (benefit) for credit losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (795) (3,964) (8,949) (852) 26,718

Charge-offs(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9,864) (6,589) (9,017) (15,313) (21,308)

Recoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,260 1,436 2,627 1,856 5,277

Other(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,202 609 608 1,185 584

Ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28,590 $ 36,787 $ 45,295 $ 60,026 $ 73,150

Allocation of combined loss reserves:

Balance at end of each period attributable to:

Single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28,325 $ 36,383 $ 44,705 $ 58,809 $ 71,512

Multifamily. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 404 590 1,217 1,638

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28,590 $ 36,787 $ 45,295 $ 60,026 $ 73,150

Single-family and multifamily combined loss reserves as a

percentage of applicable guaranty book of business:

Single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.00% 1.28% 1.55% 2.08% 2.52%

Multifamily. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.12 0.20 0.29 0.59 0.84

Combined loss reserves as a percentage of:

Total guaranty book of business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.94% 1.20% 1.47% 1.97% 2.41%

Recorded investment in nonaccrual loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57.86 56.63 54.20 52.31 51.15

Certain higher risk loan categories as a percentage of

single-family combined loss reserves:

2005-2008 loan vintages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81% 81% 84% 85% 88%

Alt-A loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 25 26 27 29

_________

(1) Includes, for the year ended December 31, 2015, charge-offs of (1) $1.8 billion in loans held for investment and $724 million in 

preforeclosure property taxes and insurance receivable in connection with our adoption of the Advisory Bulletin on January 1, 2015 and 

(2) $1.1 billion in accrued interest receivable in connection with our adoption of a change in accounting policy on January 1, 2015 

related to the treatment of interest previously accrued, but not collected, at the date that loans are placed on nonaccrual status. See 

“Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” for additional information. 

(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 mortgage interest rates. In 

addition, our benefit or provision 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.

The following factors impacted our benefit for credit losses in 2015:

• Home prices increased in 2015, which contributed to our benefit for credit losses in 2015. 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 redesignated certain nonperforming single-family loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of $9.3 

billion from HFI to HFS in 2015. Those loans were adjusted to the lower of cost or fair value, which reduced our 

benefit for credit losses by approximately $900 million. Those nonperforming single-family loans were redesignated 

to HFS as we intend to sell or have sold them. As described in “Executive Summary—Helping to Build a 

Sustainable Housing Finance System,” we plan to complete additional sales of nonperforming loans. 
82

As we continue to reduce the number of single-family nonperforming loans held for investment in our book of business, we 

expect changes in home prices will have a lesser impact on our provision for credit losses.

We recognized a benefit for credit losses in 2014 primarily due to increases in home prices. In addition, mortgage interest 

rates declined in 2014 resulting in higher discounted cash flow projections on our individually impaired loans. Lower 

mortgage interest rates shorten the expected lives of modified loans, which reduces the impairment on these loans and results 

in a decrease in the provision for credit losses. In addition, we updated the model and the assumptions used to estimate cash 

flows for individually impaired single-family loans within our allowance for loan losses, which resulted in a decrease to our 

allowance for loan losses and an incremental benefit for credit losses.

We recognized a benefit for credit losses in 2013 primarily due to increases in home prices, as well as higher sales prices of 

our REO properties as a result of strong demand. In addition, we updated the assumptions and data used to estimate our 

allowance for loan losses for individually impaired single-family loans, which resulted in a decrease to our allowance for 

loan losses and an incremental benefit for credit losses.

We discuss our expectations regarding our future loss reserves in “Business—Executive Summary—Outlook—Loss 

Reserves.”

Troubled Debt Restructurings and Nonaccrual Loans

Table 13 displays the composition of loans restructured in a 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.” For activity related to our 

single-family TDRs, see “Table 39: Single-Family Troubled Debt Restructuring Activity” in “MD&A—Risk Management—

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

Table 13: Troubled Debt Restructurings and Nonaccrual Loans

As of December 31,

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

(Dollars in millions)

TDRs on accrual status:

Single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $140,588 $144,649 $140,512 $135,196 $107,991

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376 645 715 868 806

Total TDRs on accrual status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $140,964 $145,294 $141,227 $136,064 $108,797

Nonaccrual loans:

Single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 48,821 $ 64,136 $ 81,355 $112,555 $140,234

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 591 823 2,209 2,206 2,764

Total nonaccrual loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 49,412 $ 64,959 $ 83,564 $114,761 $142,998

Accruing on-balance sheet loans past due 90 days or more(1)

. . . . . . $ 499 $ 585 $ 719 $ 3,580 $ 768

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013 2012 2011

(Dollars in millions)

Interest related to on-balance sheet TDRs and nonaccrual loans:

Interest income forgone(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $5,227 $5,945 $6,805 $7,554 $8,224

Interest income recognized(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,511 6,886 6,710 7,425 7,912

__________

(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. Amount as of December 31, 2012 includes loans of $2.8 billion which were repurchased by the lender in January 

2013 pursuant to a resolution agreement.

(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.
83

Foreclosed Property Expense (Income)

Foreclosed property expense increased in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily due to higher operating expenses relating to 

property tax and insurance costs on our single-family foreclosed properties and a decrease in the amount of income from the 

resolution of compensatory fees and representation and warranty matters. Compensatory fees are amounts we charge our 

primary servicers to reimburse us for damages and losses related to certain violations of our Servicing Guide, which sets forth 

our policies and procedures related to servicing our single-family mortgages.

We recognized foreclosed property expense in 2014 compared with foreclosed property income in 2013 primarily due to a 

decrease in the amount of compensatory fee income recognized related to servicing matters and a decrease in the gains 

resulting from resolution agreements reached related to representation and warranty matters.

Credit Loss Performance Metrics

Our credit-related expense (income) 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 

able to evaluate our credit performance on a more consistent basis among periods. Table 14 displays the components of our 

credit loss performance metrics as well as our single-family and multifamily initial charge-off severity rates.

Table 14: Credit Loss Performance Metrics

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Amount Ratio(1) Amount Ratio(1) Amount Ratio(1)

(Dollars in millions)

Charge-offs, net of recoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,049 16.6 bps $ 5,153 16.8 bps $ 6,390 20.9 bps

Adoption of Advisory Bulletin and change in 

accounting policy(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,555 11.7 — — — —

Foreclosed property expense (income) . . . . . . . . . . . 1,629 5.3 142 0.5 (2,839) (9.3)

Credit losses including the effect of fair value 

losses on acquired credit-impaired loans . . . . . . . . 10,233 33.6 5,295 17.3 3,551 11.6

Plus: Impact of acquired credit-impaired loans on 

charge-offs and foreclosed property expense(3) 

. . . 442 1.4 637 2.1 953 3.1

Credit losses and credit loss ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10,675 35.0 bps $ 5,932 19.4 bps $ 4,504 14.7 bps

Credit losses attributable to:

Single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10,731 $ 5,978 $ 4,452

Multifamily(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (56) (46) 52

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $10,675 $ 5,932 $ 4,504

Single-family initial charge-off severity rate(5). . . . . 15.91 % 19.60 % 24.22 %

Multifamily initial charge-off severity rate(5). . . . . . 22.51 % 25.08 % 23.56 %
84

__________

(1) Basis points are based on the amount for each line item presented divided by the average guaranty book of business during the period.

(2) Includes, for the year ended December 31, 2015, charge-offs of (1) $1.8 billion in loans held for investment and $724 million in 

preforeclosure property taxes and insurance receivable in connection with our adoption of the Advisory Bulletin on January 1, 2015 and 

(2) $1.1 billion in accrued interest receivable in connection with our adoption of a change in accounting policy on January 1, 2015 

related to the treatment of interest previously accrued, but not collected, at the date that loans are placed on nonaccrual status. See 

“Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” for additional information. 

(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. Single-family rate excludes charge-offs from short sales 

and third-party sales. Multifamily rate is net of risk sharing agreements.

Our credit losses and credit loss ratio increased in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily due to our approach to adopting the 

charge-off provisions of the Advisory Bulletin on January 1, 2015, a change in our accounting policy for nonaccrual loans, 

the recognition of losses associated with the redesignation of certain nonperforming single-family loans from HFI to HFS and 

an increase in operating expenses on our single-family foreclosed properties. See “Note 1, Summary of Significant 

Accounting Policies” for additional information on our approach to implementing the charge-off provisions of the Advisory 

Bulletin. 

Credit losses increased in 2014 compared with 2013 primarily due to a lower level of recoveries resulting from repurchase 

and compensatory fee resolution agreements in 2014 compared with 2013. The amounts we recognized in 2013 pursuant to a 

number of these resolution agreements significantly reduced our credit losses in 2013. We recognized less income as a result 

of resolution agreements in 2014. This increase in our credit losses was partially offset by lower REO acquisitions in 2014, 

driven by lower delinquencies and the slow pace of foreclosures in certain areas of the country. For additional information on 

our single-family REO inventory, refer to “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit 

Risk Management.”

We discuss our expectations regarding our future credit losses in “Business—Executive Summary—Outlook—Credit 

Losses.”

Table 15 displays concentrations of our single-family credit losses based on geography, credit characteristics and loan 

vintages.

Table 15: Credit Loss Concentration Analysis

Percentage of SingleFamily Conventional 

Guaranty Book of 

Business Outstanding(1)

Percentage of SingleFamily Credit Losses(2)

As of December 31,

For the Year Ended

December 31,

2015 2014 2013 2015 2014 2013

Geographical Distribution:

California(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20% 20% 20% 1% (1)% 5%

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6 6 21 33 29

New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 4 22 7 4

New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 5 5 16 5 2

All other states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 65 65 40 56 60

Select higher-risk product features(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 22 23 59 51 55

Vintages:(5)

2004 and prior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 7 9 12 12 12

2005 - 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 12 15 78 75 78

2009 - 2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 81 76 10 13 10
85

__________

(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) Negative credit losses in 2014 are the result of recoveries on previously recognized credit losses.

(4) 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.

(5) 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 15, the majority of our credit losses in 2015 continued to be driven by loans originated in 2005 through 

2008. Our credit losses increased in New York and New Jersey in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily because, pursuant to 

the revised charge-off policy we implemented in 2015, we charged off a portion of a large number of excessively delinquent 

loans in these states 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 2015 compared with 2014, and in 2014 

compared with 2013 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. 

Federal Income Taxes 

We recognized a provision for federal income taxes of $5.3 billion in 2015 and $6.9 billion in 2014. Our effective tax rates, 

which were 32.4% in 2015 and 32.8% in 2014, were different from the federal statutory rate of 35% primarily due to the 

benefits of our investments in housing projects eligible for low-income housing tax credits. We recognized a benefit for 

federal income taxes of $58.3 billion in 2013 related to the release of the valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets, 

partially offset by our 2013 provision for federal income taxes, resulting in a net tax benefit of $45.4 billion in 2013. See 

“Note 10, Income Taxes” for information on our income taxes.

BUSINESS SEGMENT RESULTS

We provide a more complete description of our business segments in “Business—Business Segments.” 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 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 consolidated results for segment reporting purposes, we reconcile the 

activity related to our consolidated trusts and other differences to our consolidated results of operations. We describe the 

management reporting and allocation process used to generate our segment results and provide a reconciliation of our 

segment results to our consolidated results in “Note 12, Segment Reporting.”

In this section, we provide a comparative discussion of our segment results for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 

2013. This section should be read together with our comparative discussion of our consolidated results of operations in 

“Consolidated Results of Operations.” 

Single-Family Business Results

Table 16 displays the financial results of our Single-Family business for the periods indicated. For a discussion of singlefamily 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.
86

Table 16: Single-Family Business Results

For the Year Ended December 31, Variance

2015 2014 2013 2015 vs. 2014 2014 vs. 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Guaranty fee income(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 12,476 $ 11,702 $ 10,468 $ 774 $ 1,234

Credit-related income (expense)(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,035) 3,625 11,205 (4,660) (7,580)

TCCA fees(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,621) (1,375) (1,001) (246) (374)

Other expenses(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,197) (1,977) (1,506) (220) (471)

Income before federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,623 11,975 19,166 (4,352) (7,191)

Benefit (provision) for federal income taxes. . . . . . (2,491) (3,496) 29,110 1,005 (32,606)

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,132 $ 8,479 $ 48,276 $ (3,347) $ (39,797)

Other key performance data:

Securitization Activity/New Business

Single-family Fannie Mae MBS issuances . . . . . . . $ 472,471 $ 375,676 $ 733,111

Credit Guaranty Activity

Average single-family guaranty book of business(4) $ 2,836,447 $ 2,867,787 $ 2,855,821

Single-family effective guaranty fee rate:

Total rate, net of TCCA fee (in basis points)(5)(7) 38.3 36.0 33.1

Total rate (in basis points)(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44.0 40.8 36.7

Single-family average charged guaranty fee on

new acquisitions:

Total fee, net of TCCA fee (in basis points)(6)(7)

. 50.5 52.9 47.4

Total fee (in basis points)(6)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60.5 62.9 57.4

Single-family serious delinquency rate, at end of 

period(8)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.55 % 1.89 % 2.38 %

Market

Single-family mortgage debt outstanding, at end 

of period (total U.S. market)(9)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9,952,018 $ 9,881,157 $ 9,876,643

30-year mortgage rate, at end of period(10)

. . . . . . . 4.01 % 3.87 % 4.48 %

__________

(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 (provision) for credit losses and foreclosed property income (expense).

(3) Consists of net interest income (loss), investment gains (losses), net, fair value gains (losses), net, gains (losses) from partnership 

investments, fee and other income (expense), 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 Single-Family segment guaranty fee income divided by the average single-family guaranty book of business. 

(6) 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. 

(7) 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.

(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 December 31, 2015 is as of September 30, 2015 and is based on the Federal Reserve’s December 2015 

mortgage debt outstanding release, the latest date for which the Federal Reserve has estimated mortgage debt outstanding for singlefamily residences. Prior period amounts have been changed to reflect revised historical data from the Federal Reserve.
87

(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.

2015 compared with 2014

Pre-tax income decreased in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily due to credit-related expense in 2015 compared with creditrelated income in 2014, partially offset by the recognition of higher guaranty fee income in 2015 compared with 2014.

We recognized credit-related expense in 2015 compared with credit-related income in 2014. This shift was primarily driven 

by a lower benefit for credit losses and higher foreclosed property expense in 2015. The reduction in our benefit for credit 

losses in 2015 as compared with 2014 was primarily driven by decreases in mortgage interest rates in 2014, which decreased 

the impairment on our individually impaired loans related to concessions provided on our modified loans and resulted in an 

increase in our benefit for credit losses in 2014. Changes in interest rates were not a primary driver of our 2015 benefit for 

credit losses. In addition, although home prices increased in both 2014 and 2015, home price increases had a smaller impact 

on our benefit for credit losses in 2015 compared with 2014, primarily due to the smaller number of nonperforming loans 

held for investment in our guaranty book of business in 2015 as compared with 2014. Also contributing to our lower benefit 

for credit losses in 2015 was our redesignation of certain nonperforming single-family loans from HFI to HFS in connection 

with our plans to sell these loans.

Guaranty fee income and our effective guaranty fee rate increased in 2015 compared with 2014 as loans with higher guaranty 

fees became a larger part of our single-family guaranty book of business in 2015 primarily due to the cumulative impact of 

guaranty fee price increases implemented in 2012. 

TCCA fees increased in 2015 compared with 2014, as single-family loans acquired since the implementation of the TCCArelated guaranty fee increased in 2012 constituted a larger portion of our single-family guaranty book of business in 2015.

Other expenses increased in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily as a result of the recognition of administrative expenses 

related to the settlement of our defined benefit pension plan obligations in 2015.

Our single-family acquisition volume and single-family Fannie Mae MBS issuances increased in 2015 compared with 2014, 

driven primarily by an increase in refinance activity. Higher refinance activity also drove an increase in liquidations of loans 

from our single-family guaranty book of business in 2015 compared with 2014. Accordingly, the size of our single-family 

guaranty book of business remained relatively flat.

Our average charged guaranty fee on newly acquired single-family loans decreased in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily as 

the result of a decrease in loan level price adjustments charged on our acquisitions in 2015 and by changes we made in our 

contractual fee rates. See “Business—Executive Summary—Single-Family Guaranty Book of Business—Recently Acquired 

Single-Family Loans” for a discussion of the factors that affect the amount of loan-level price adjustments that we charge 

from period to period.

2014 compared with 2013 

Pre-tax income decreased in 2014 compared with 2013 primarily due to a decrease in credit-related income, partially offset 

by an increase in guaranty fee income.

Our single-family credit-related income decreased in 2014 compared with 2013 primarily due to home prices increasing at a 

slower pace in 2014 as compared with 2013. In addition, 2013 single-family credit-related income benefited from foreclosed 

property income primarily due to the recognition of income related to compensatory fee arrangements. 

Guaranty fee income and our effective guaranty fee rate increased in 2014 compared with 2013 as loans with higher guaranty 

fees became a larger part of our single-family guaranty book of business in 2014 due to the cumulative impact of guaranty fee 

price increases implemented in 2012. 

TCCA fees increased in 2014 compared with 2013, as single-family loans acquired since the implementation of the TCCArelated guaranty fee increased in 2012 constituted a larger portion of our single-family guaranty book of business in 2014.

We recognized a provision for federal income taxes in 2014 compared with a benefit for federal income taxes in 2013. The 

benefit for federal income taxes in 2013 primarily represented the release in the first quarter of 2013 of the substantial 

majority of the valuation allowance against the portion of our deferred tax assets that we attributed to our Single-Family 

segment.

Our single-family acquisition volume and single-family Fannie Mae MBS issuances decreased significantly in 2014 

compared with 2013; however, liquidations of loans from our single-family guaranty book of business also declined due to 

lower refinance activity. Accordingly, the size of our single-family guaranty book of business remained relatively flat. 
88

Our average charged guaranty fee on newly acquired single-family loans increased in 2014 compared with 2013 primarily as 

the result of an increase in loan level price adjustments charged on our acquisitions in 2014, as these acquisitions included a 

higher proportion of loans with higher LTV ratios and a higher proportion of loans with lower FICO credit scores than our 

acquisitions in 2013.

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.

Table 17 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, gains from partnership investments and administrative expenses.
89

Table 17: Multifamily Business Results

For the Year Ended December 31, Variance

2015 2014 2013 2015 vs. 2014 2014 vs. 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Guaranty fee income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,439 $ 1,297 $ 1,217 $ 142 $ 80

Fee and other income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265 166 182 99 (16)

Gains from partnership investments(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 282 299 498 (17) (199)

Credit-related income(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201 197 583 4 (386)

Other expenses(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (433) (338) (335) (95) (3)

Income before federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,754 1,621 2,145 133 (524)

(Provision) benefit for federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . (247) (158) 7,924 (89) (8,082)

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,507 $ 1,463 $ 10,069 $ 44 $(8,606)

Other key performance data:

Securitization Activity/New Business

Multifamily new business volume(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 42,342 $ 28,908 $ 28,752

Multifamily units financed from new business volume . 569,000 446,000 507,000

Multifamily Fannie Mae MBS issuances(5)

. . . . . . . . . . $ 43,923 $ 31,997 $ 31,403

Multifamily Fannie Mae structured securities

issuances (issued by Capital Markets group) . . . . . . . $ 11,685 $ 12,040 $ 10,185

Multifamily Fannie Mae MBS outstanding, at end of 

period(6)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $188,212 $167,010 $148,724

Credit Guaranty Activity

Average multifamily guaranty book of business(7)

. . . . . $209,747 $200,150 $204,284

Multifamily effective guaranty fee rate (in basis 

points)(8)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68.6 64.8 59.6

Multifamily credit loss ratio (in basis points)(9)

. . . . . . . (2.7) (2.3) 2.5

Multifamily serious delinquency rate, at end of period . 0.07 % 0.05 % 0.10 %

Percentage of multifamily guaranty book of business

with credit enhancement, at end of period . . . . . . . . . 94 % 93 % 91 %

Fannie Mae percentage of total multifamily mortgage 

debt outstanding, at end of period(10)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 % 19 % 20 %

Portfolio Data

Average Fannie Mae multifamily mortgage loans and 

Fannie Mae MBS in Capital Markets group’s 

portfolio(11)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 33,404 $ 49,677 $ 74,613

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)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 693 $ 757 $ 1,360

__________

(1) Gains from partnership investments are included in other expenses, net in our 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 (provision) for credit losses and foreclosed property income (expense).

(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, 

(b) Fannie Mae portfolio securitization transactions of $1.8 billion, $3.4 billion and $2.9 billion for the years ended December 31, 2015, 
90

2014 and 2013, respectively, and (c) conversions of adjustable-rate loans to fixed-rate loans and discount MBS (“DMBS”) to MBS of 

$60 million, $3 million and $68 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

(6) Includes $10.9 billion and $18.7 billion of Fannie Mae multifamily MBS held in the retained mortgage portfolio, the vast majority of 

which have been consolidated to loans in our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, 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 Multifamily segment guaranty fee income divided by the average multifamily guaranty book of business, 

expressed in basis points.

(9) Calculated based on Multifamily segment credit losses divided by the average multifamily guaranty book of business, expressed in 

basis points. 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 December 31, 2015 is 

as of September 30, 2015 and is based on the Federal Reserve’s December 2015 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.

2015 compared with 2014

Pre-tax income increased in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily due to increases in guaranty fee income and fee and other 

income, partially offset by an increase in other expenses. 

Guaranty fee income increased in 2015 compared with 2014 as loans with higher guaranty fees have become a larger part of 

our multifamily guaranty book of business, while loans with lower guaranty fees continue to liquidate.

Fee and other income increased in 2015 compared with 2014 as a result of an increase in yield maintenance income driven by 

higher prepayment volumes in 2015 compared with 2014.

Credit-related income remained relatively consistent in 2015 compared with 2014 as both years were driven by gains on the 

disposition of REO properties and improvements in the allowance for loan losses as a result of the continued stability of 

multifamily market fundamentals.

Gains from partnership investments decreased in 2015 compared with 2014 as a result of lower sales activity. 

Other expenses increased in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily as a result of the recognition of administrative expenses 

related to the settlement of our defined benefit pension plan obligations in 2015. 

Multifamily new business volume increased in 2015 compared with 2014 driven by substantial growth in the overall 

multifamily market. FHFA’s 2015 conservatorship scorecard included an objective to maintain the dollar volume of new 

multifamily business at or below $30 billion excluding certain targeted business segments. Approximately 68% of our 2015 

multifamily business volume of $42.3 billion counted towards FHFA’s 2015 multifamily volume cap.

Similar to the 2015 scorecard, FHFA’s 2016 conservatorship scorecard includes an objective to maintain the dollar volume of 

new multifamily business at $31 billion or below, with similar excluded business segments. 

2014 compared with 2013

Pre-tax income decreased in 2014 compared with 2013 primarily due to decreases in credit-related income and gains on 

partnership investments, partially offset by an increase in guaranty fee income. 

Credit-related income decreased in 2014 compared with 2013 primarily as a result of smaller improvements in property 

valuations in 2014 compared with 2013, as well as improvements in loss severity trends in 2013.

Guaranty fee income increased in 2014 compared with 2013 as loans with higher guaranty fees have become a larger part of 

our multifamily guaranty book of business, while loans with lower guaranty fees continue to liquidate.

Gains from partnership investments decreased in 2014 compared with 2013 primarily as a result of lower sales activity.
91

We recognized a provision for federal income taxes in 2014 compared with a benefit for federal income taxes in 2013. The 

benefit for federal income taxes in 2013 primarily represented the release in the first quarter of 2013 of the substantial 

majority of the valuation allowance against the portion of our deferred tax assets that we attributed to our Multifamily 

segment. 

Capital Markets Group Results

Table 18 displays the financial results of our Capital Markets group. 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 “Risk Management—Market Risk 

Management, Including Interest Rate Risk Management” and “Note 9, Derivative Instruments.” The primary sources of 

revenue for our Capital Markets group are net interest income and fee and other 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 18: Capital Markets Group Results

For the Year Ended December 31, Variance

2015 2014 2013 2015 vs. 2014 2014 vs. 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Net interest income(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,828 $ 7,243 $ 9,764 $ (1,415) $ (2,521)

Investment gains, net(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,539 6,378 4,847 (839) 1,531

Fair value gains (losses), net(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,049) (5,476) 3,148 3,427 (8,624)

Fee and other income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 209 4,894 3,010 (4,685) 1,884

Other expenses(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,528) (1,638) (1,627) 110 (11)

Income before federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,999 11,401 19,142 (3,402) (7,741)

(Provision) benefit for federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,515) (3,287) 8,381 772 (11,668)

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,484 $ 8,114 $ 27,523 $ (2,630) $ (19,409)

__________

(1) Includes contractual interest income, excluding recoveries, on nonaccrual loans received from the Single-Family segment of $2.0 

billion, $2.6 billion and $3.8 billion for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, 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 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 gains (losses) on derivatives and trading securities that we own regardless of whether the trust has been 

consolidated.

(4) Includes allocated guaranty fee expense, debt extinguishment gains (losses), net, administrative expenses, and other expenses. Gains or 

losses related to the extinguishment of debt issued by consolidated trusts are excluded from the Capital Markets group’s results because 

purchases of securities are recognized as such.

2015 compared with 2014

Pre-tax income decreased in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily due to decreases in fee and other income, net interest 

income and investment gains in 2015, partially offset by lower fair value losses in 2015 compared with 2014. 

Fee and other income decreased in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily due to higher revenue recognized in 2014 as a result 

of settlement agreements resolving certain lawsuits relating to PLS sold to us. 

The decrease in net interest income in 2015 compared with 2014 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. See “The Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage 

Portfolio” for additional information on our retained mortgage portfolio.

Investment gains decreased in 2015 compared with 2014 primarily due to lower gains on the sale of Fannie Mae MBS 

designated as AFS securities as a result of an increase in interest rates in 2015. 
92

Fair value losses in 2015 were primarily due to fair value losses on our risk management derivatives. The derivatives fair 

value losses that are reported for the Capital Markets group are consistent with the losses reported in our consolidated 

statements of operations and comprehensive income. We discuss our derivatives fair value gains and losses in “Consolidated 

Results of Operations—Fair Value Gains (Losses), Net.”

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 gains (losses), net” and is 

displayed in “Table 10: Fair Value Gains (Losses), Net.”

2014 compared with 2013

Pre-tax income decreased in 2014 compared with 2013 primarily due to the recognition of fair value losses in 2014 compared 

with fair value gains recognized in 2013 and a decrease in net interest income. The decrease in pre-tax income in 2014 

compared with 2013 was partially offset by increases in fee and other income and investment gains. 

Fair value losses in 2014 were primarily due to fair value losses on our risk management derivatives. 

The decrease in net interest income in 2014 compared with 2013 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.

Fee and other income increased in 2014 compared with 2013 due to an increase in income recognized as a result of settlement 

agreements resolving certain lawsuits relating to PLS sold to us from $2.2 billion in 2013 to $4.8 billion in 2014.

Investment gains increased in 2014 compared with 2013 primarily due to higher gains on the sale of Fannie Mae MBS 

designated as AFS securities as a result of a decline in interest rates in 2014. During 2013, we had lower gains on the sale of 

Fannie Mae MBS designated as AFS securities due to an increase in interest rates in 2013.

We recognized a provision for federal income taxes in 2014 compared with a benefit for federal income taxes in 2013. The 

benefit for federal income taxes in 2013 primarily represented the release in the first quarter of 2013 of the substantial 

majority of the valuation allowance against the portion of our deferred tax assets that we attributed to our Capital Markets 

group.

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 were permitted to own as of December 31, 2015 was $399.2 billion and will be $339.3 billion as of December 31, 2016.

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 reduced our retained mortgage portfolio to $345.1 billion as of December 

31, 2015, below the $359.3 billion cap, in compliance with FHFA’s request. We are required to reduce our retained mortgage 

portfolio to no more than $305.4 billion as of December 31, 2016.

As we continue to reduce the size of our retained mortgage portfolio, our revenues generated by our retained mortgage 

portfolio will continue to decrease. For additional information on the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement 

with Treasury, see “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements—Treasury Agreements.” 
93

Table 19 displays our Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio activity based on unpaid principal balance.

Table 19: Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio Activity

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Mortgage loans:

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 285,610 $ 314,664 $ 371,708

Purchases. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 202,642 153,430 232,582

Securitizations(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (188,273) (131,576) (207,437)

Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3,586) (1,879) (1,246)

Liquidations(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (42,801) (49,029) (80,943)

Mortgage loans, ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253,592 285,610 314,664

Mortgage securities:

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,703 176,037 261,346

Purchases(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49,554 24,885 36,848

Securitizations(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 188,273 131,576 207,437

Sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (253,438) (177,883) (278,421)

Liquidations(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (20,581) (26,912) (51,173)

Mortgage securities, ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91,511 127,703 176,037

Total Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 345,103 $ 413,313 $ 490,701

__________

(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. 
94

Table 20 displays the composition of the unpaid principal balance of the 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 issuer of the asset and the nature of the collateral underlying the asset. Our unsecuritized mortgage loans, PLS and 

other non-agency securities are considered less liquid. Fannie Mae securities that are collateralized by non-agency mortgagerelated securities are also considered to be less liquid.

Table 20: Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio Composition

As of December 31,

2015 2014

More

Liquid

Less

Liquid Total

More

Liquid

Less

Liquid Total

(Dollars in millions)

Mortgage loans:

Single-family loans:

Government insured or guaranteed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ — $ 33,376 $ 33,376 $ — $ 36,442 $ 36,442

Conventional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 206,851 206,851 — 225,800 225,800

Total single-family loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 240,227 240,227 — 262,242 262,242

Multifamily loans:

Government insured or guaranteed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 224 224 — 243 243

Conventional . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 13,141 13,141 — 23,125 23,125

Total multifamily loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 13,365 13,365 — 23,368 23,368

Total mortgage loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 253,592 253,592 — 285,610 285,610

Mortgage-related securities:

Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57,185 11,512 68,697 80,377 12,442 92,819

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,232 — 5,232 6,368 — 6,368

Ginnie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 748 — 748 572 — 572

Alt-A private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 3,481 3,481 — 7,745 7,745

Subprime private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 5,212 5,212 — 8,913 8,913

Commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”). . — 3,515 3,515 — 3,686 3,686

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 3,105 3,105 — 4,556 4,556

Other mortgage-related securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,521 1,521 — 3,044 3,044

Total mortgage-related securities(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63,165 28,346 91,511 87,317 40,386 127,703

Total Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio. . . . . . $63,165 $281,938 $345,103 $ 87,317 $325,996 $413,313

__________

(1) The fair value of these mortgage-related securities was $96.0 billion and $133.5 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio decreased 17% during 2015. Higher sales volumes drove the decrease in the 

portfolio compared with 2014. This activity was partially offset by increased purchases as a result of higher mortgage 

originations. We continued to reduce the size of our retained mortgage portfolio to comply with the requirements of our 

senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury and FHFA’s request to further cap our portfolio.

As described in “Executive Summary—Helping to Build a Sustainable Housing Finance System,” in 2015 we completed 

three sales of nonperforming loans with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of $2.1 billion, which contributed to the 

reduction in our less liquid assets as of December 31, 2015.
95

The loans we purchased in 2015 included $13.2 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 21 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.

Table 21: Capital Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio

As of December 31,

2015 2014

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Percent

of Total

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Percent

of Total

(Dollars in millions)

TDRs on accrual status. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 137,117 40% $ 140,828 34%

Nonaccrual loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,000 13 58,597 14

All other mortgage-related assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160,986 47 213,888 52

Total Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 345,103 100% $ 413,313 100%

CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET ANALYSIS

We seek to structure the composition of our balance sheet and manage its size to comply with our regulatory requirements, to 

provide adequate liquidity to meet our needs, and to mitigate our interest rate risk and credit risk exposure. The major asset 

components of our consolidated balance sheets include our mortgage investments and our cash and other investments 

portfolio. We fund and manage the interest rate risk on these investments through the issuance of debt securities and the use 

of derivatives. Our debt securities and derivatives represent the major liability components of our consolidated balance 

sheets.

This section provides a discussion of our consolidated balance sheets as of the dates indicated and should be read together 

with our consolidated financial statements, including the accompanying notes. 
96

Table 22: Summary of Consolidated Balance Sheets

As of December 31,

2015 2014 Variance

(Dollars in millions)

Assets

Cash and cash equivalents and federal funds sold and securities purchased

under agreements to resell or similar arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 42,024 $ 52,973 $ (10,949)

Restricted cash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,879 32,542 (1,663)

Investments in securities(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,138 62,158 (2,020)

Mortgage loans:

Of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 238,397 272,666 (34,269)

Of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,809,198 2,782,369 26,829

Allowance for loan losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (27,951) (35,541) 7,590

Mortgage loans, net of allowance for loan losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,019,644 3,019,494 150

Deferred tax assets, net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,187 42,206 (5,019)

Other assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32,045 38,803 (6,758)

Total assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,221,917 $ 3,248,176 $ (26,259)

Liabilities and equity

Debt:

Of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 386,135 $ 460,443 $ (74,308)

Of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,811,536 2,761,712 49,824

Other liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,187 22,301 (2,114)

Total liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,217,858 3,244,456 (26,598)

Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,059 3,720 339

Total liabilities and equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,221,917 $ 3,248,176 $ (26,259)

__________

(1) Includes $29.5 billion as of December 31, 2015 and $19.5 billion as of December 31, 2014 of U.S. Treasury securities that are included 

in our other investments portfolio, which we present in “Table 28: Cash and Other Investments Portfolio.”

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.

Investments in Securities

Our investments in mortgage-related securities are classified in our consolidated balance sheets as either trading or availablefor-sale and are measured at fair value. Table 23 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 CMBS if the 

securities were labeled as such when issued. We have also invested in subprime private-label mortgage-related securities that 

we have resecuritized to include our guaranty. 
97

Table 23: Summary of Mortgage-Related Securities at Fair Value

As of December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Mortgage-related securities:

Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9,034 $ 10,579 $ 12,443

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,613 6,897 8,681

Ginnie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 817 642 995

Alt-A private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,114 6,598 8,865

Subprime private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,925 6,547 8,516

CMBS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,596 3,912 4,324

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,150 4,745 5,821

Other mortgage-related securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,404 2,772 2,988

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 30,653 $ 42,692 $ 52,633

The decrease in mortgage-related securities at fair value in 2015 was primarily driven by higher sales volumes, as well as 

liquidations, partially offset by increased purchases as a result of higher mortgage originations. We continue to reduce the 

size of our retained mortgage portfolio to comply with the requirements of our senior preferred stock purchase agreement 

with Treasury and FHFA’s request to further cap our portfolio. See “Business Segment Results—The Capital Markets 

Group’s Mortgage Portfolio” for additional information related to the reduction in our retained mortgage portfolio.

See “Note 5, Investments in Securities” for additional information on our investments in mortgage-related securities, 

including the composition of our trading and available-for-sale securities at amortized cost and fair value and the gross 

unrealized gains and losses related to our available-for-sale securities as of December 31, 2015 and 2014.

Mortgage Loans

The mortgage loans reported in our consolidated balance sheets include loans owned by Fannie Mae and loans held in 

consolidated trusts and are classified as either HFS or HFI. Mortgage loans, net of allowance, remained relatively flat as of 

December 31, 2015 compared with December 31, 2014. This resulted primarily from a decrease in our allowance for loan 

losses and an increase in mortgage loans of consolidated trusts due to securitization activity from our lender swap and 

portfolio securitization programs. Offsetting these factors was a decline in mortgage loans of Fannie Mae resulting from 

liquidations outpacing acquisitions. For additional information on our mortgage loans, see “Note 3, Mortgage Loans,” and for 

changes in our allowance for loan losses, see “Note 4, Allowance for Loan Losses.” For additional information on the 

mortgage loan purchase and sale activities reported by our Capital Markets group, see “Business Segment Results—Capital 

Markets Group Results.” 

The decrease in our allowance for loan losses during 2015 was primarily driven by our approach to adopting the charge-off 

provisions of the Advisory Bulletin on January 1, 2015, the change in accounting policy related to the treatment of accrued 

interest receivable, improvement in home prices, liquidations of mortgage loans and the redesignation of certain 

nonperforming single-family loans from HFI to HFS, which relieved the allowance on these loans. For information on our 

benefit for credit losses, see “Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related Income (Expense)—Provision (Benefit) 

for Credit Losses.”

Other Assets

Other assets consist of accrued interest receivable, net; acquired property, net; and other miscellaneous assets. The decrease in 

other assets was primarily due to acquired property dispositions outpacing the number of properties acquired through 

foreclosure, which resulted in a reduction in the number of acquired properties held in 2015. 

Debt

Debt of Fannie Mae is the primary means of funding our mortgage investments. Debt of consolidated trusts represents the 

amount of Fannie Mae MBS issued from consolidated trusts and held by third-party certificateholders. 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 longterm 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. 
98

The decrease in debt of Fannie Mae in 2015 was primarily driven by lower funding needs, as our retained mortgage portfolio 

decreased. The increase in the balance of debt of consolidated trusts during 2015 was primarily driven by sales of Fannie Mae 

MBS, which are accounted for as reissuances of debt of consolidated trusts in our consolidated balance sheets, since the MBS 

certificate ownership is transferred from us to a third party.

Stockholders’ Equity 

Our net equity increased as of December 31, 2015 compared with December 31, 2014 primarily due to our comprehensive 

income recognized during the year, partially offset by the payment of senior preferred stock dividends to Treasury during the 

year. 

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. See “Liquidity Risk 

Management Practices and Contingency Planning” for a discussion of our liquidity contingency plans. Also see “Risk 

Factors” for a description of the risks associated with our liquidity risk and liquidity contingency planning.

Primary Sources and Uses of Funds 

Our primary source of funds is proceeds from the issuance of short-term and long-term debt securities. Accordingly, our 

liquidity depends largely on our ability to issue unsecured debt in the capital markets. Our status as a GSE and federal 

government support of our business continue to be essential to maintaining our access to the unsecured debt markets. 

In addition to funding we obtain from the issuance of debt securities, our other sources of cash include: 

• principal and interest payments received on mortgage loans, mortgage-related securities and non-mortgage 

investments we own; 

• proceeds from the sale of mortgage-related securities, mortgage loans and non-mortgage assets, including proceeds 

from the sales of foreclosed real estate assets; 

• guaranty fees received on Fannie Mae MBS; 

• payments received from mortgage insurance counterparties and other providers of credit enhancement; 

• net receipts on derivative instruments; 

• receipt of cash collateral; and 

• borrowings under a secured intraday funding line of credit and borrowings against mortgage-related securities and 

other investment securities we hold pursuant to repurchase agreements and loan agreements.

Our primary funding needs include: 

• the repayment of matured, redeemed and repurchased debt; 

• the purchase of mortgage loans (including delinquent loans from MBS trusts), mortgage-related securities and other 

investments;

• interest payments on outstanding debt; 

• dividend payments made to Treasury on the senior preferred stock; 

• net payments on derivative instruments; 

• the pledging of collateral under derivative instruments; 

• administrative expenses;

• losses incurred in connection with our Fannie Mae MBS guaranty obligations; 
99

• payments of federal income taxes;

• payments to specified HUD and Treasury funds; and

• payments of TCCA fees to Treasury. 

Liquidity Risk Management Practices and Contingency Planning 

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. See “Risk Factors” for a discussion of factors that 

could adversely affect our liquidity.

We conduct liquidity contingency planning to prepare for an event in which our access to the unsecured debt markets 

becomes limited. We plan for alternative sources of liquidity that are designed to allow us to meet our cash obligations 

without relying upon the issuance of unsecured debt for specific periods of time. 

Our liquidity management framework and practices require that we maintain: 

• a portfolio of highly liquid securities to cover a minimum of 30 calendar days of net cash needs, assuming no access 

to the short- and long-term unsecured debt markets; 

• within our cash and other investments portfolio a daily balance of U.S. Treasury securities and/or cash with the 

Federal Reserve Bank of New York that has a redemption amount of at least 50% of our average projected 30-day 

cash needs over the previous three months; and 

• a liquidity profile that meets or exceeds our projected 365-day net cash needs with liquidity holdings and 

unencumbered agency mortgage securities. 

As of December 31, 2015, we were in compliance with our liquidity risk management framework and practices set forth 

above. 

We run routine operational testing of our ability to rely upon mortgage and U.S. Treasury collateral to obtain financing. We 

enter into relatively small repurchase agreements in order to confirm that we have the operational and systems capability to 

do so. In addition, we have provided collateral in advance to a number of clearing banks in the event we seek to enter into 

repurchase agreements in the future. We do not, however, have committed repurchase agreements with specific 

counterparties, as historically we have not relied on this form of funding. As a result, our use of such facilities and our ability 

to enter into them in significant dollar amounts may be challenging in a stressed market environment. See “Risk Factors” for 

the risks associated with our ability to fund operations. 

See “Cash and Other Investments Portfolio” and “Unencumbered Mortgage Portfolio” for further discussions of our 

alternative sources of liquidity if our access to the debt markets were to become limited.

While our liquidity contingency planning attempts to address stressed market conditions and our status under conservatorship 

and Treasury arrangements, we believe that our liquidity contingency plans may be difficult or impossible to execute for a 

company of our size in our circumstances. See “Risk Factors” for a description of the risks associated with our liquidity 

contingency planning.

Debt Funding

We separately present the debt from consolidations (“debt of consolidated trusts”) and the debt issued by us (“debt of Fannie 

Mae”) in our consolidated balance sheets and in the debt tables below. Our discussion regarding debt funding in this section 

focuses on the debt of Fannie Mae. 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. 

We have a diversified funding base of domestic and international investors. Purchasers of our debt securities are 

geographically diversified and include fund managers, commercial banks, pension funds, insurance companies, foreign 

central banks, corporations, state and local governments, and other municipal authorities. 
100

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.

Fannie Mae Debt Funding Activity

Table 24 displays the activity in debt of Fannie Mae. This activity excludes the debt of consolidated trusts and intraday loans. 

The reported amounts of debt issued and paid off during the period represent the face amount of the debt at issuance and 

redemption, respectively. 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.

Table 24: Activity in Debt of Fannie Mae

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Issued during the period:

Short-term:

Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 182,358 $ 213,683 $ 216,475

Weighted-average interest rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.16% 0.08% 0.11%

Long-term:(1) 

Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 76,268 $ 45,805 $ 138,404

Weighted-average interest rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.48% 1.79% 1.07%

Total issued:

Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 258,626 $ 259,488 $ 354,879

Weighted-average interest rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.55% 0.38% 0.49%

Paid off during the period:(2)

Short-term:

Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 216,340 $ 180,920 $ 249,357

Weighted-average interest rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.10% 0.09% 0.12%

Long-term:

Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 117,350 $ 148,186 $ 192,861

Weighted-average interest rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.39% 1.80% 1.72%

Total paid off:

Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 333,690 $ 329,106 $ 442,218

Weighted-average interest rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.55% 0.86% 0.82%

__________

(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.

Many factors could affect the amount, mix and cost of our debt funding, reduce demand for our debt securities, increase our 

liquidity or roll-over risk, or have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial condition and results of operations, 

including: 

• changes or perceived changes in federal government support of our business; 

• our status as a GSE; 

• future changes or disruptions in the financial markets; 
101

• a change or perceived change in the creditworthiness of the U.S. government, due to our reliance on the U.S. 

government’s support; or 

• a downgrade in our credit ratings. 

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. See “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks we face relating to: (1) the uncertain 

future of our company; (2) our reliance on the issuance of debt securities to obtain funds for our operations and the relative 

cost to obtain these funds; (3) our liquidity contingency plans; and (4) our credit ratings. Also see “Business—Housing 

Finance Reform” for more information on GSE reform.

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.

Our outstanding short-term debt, based on its original contractual maturity, as a percentage of our total outstanding debt was 

18% as of December 31, 2015 compared with 23% as of December 31, 2014. The weighted-average interest rate on our longterm debt, based on its original contractual maturity, increased to 2.41% as of December 31, 2015 from 2.24% as of 

December 31, 2014.

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 32%

as of December 31, 2015 and 37% as of December 31, 2014. The weighted-average maturity of our outstanding debt that is 

maturing within one year was 125 days as of December 31, 2015, compared with 131 days as of December 31, 2014. The 

weighted-average maturity of our outstanding debt maturing in more than one year was approximately 57 months as of 

December 31, 2015 and approximately 61 months as of December 31, 2014. For information on the maturity profile of our 

outstanding long-term debt for each of the years 2016 through 2020 and thereafter, see “Note 8, Short-Term Borrowings and 

Long-Term Debt.”

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 $563.6 billion in 2015. As of December 31, 2015, our aggregate indebtedness totaled $389.5 billion, which was $174.1 

billion below our debt limit. Our debt limit in 2016 is $479.0 billion. 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.
102

Table 25 displays information as of the dates indicated on our outstanding short-term and long-term debt based on its original 

contractual terms.

Table 25: Outstanding Short-Term Borrowings and Long-Term Debt(1)

As of December 31,

2015 2014

Maturities Outstanding

WeightedAverage

Interest

Rate Maturities Outstanding

WeightedAverage

Interest

Rate

(Dollars in millions)

Federal funds purchased and securities sold 

under agreements to repurchase(2). . . . . — $ 62 —% — $ 50 —%

Short-term debt:

 Debt of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — $ 71,007 0.26% — $ 105,012 0.11%

Debt of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . — 943 0.19 — 1,560 0.09

Total short-term debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 71,950 0.26% $ 106,572 0.11%

Long-term debt:

Senior fixed:

Benchmark notes and bonds. . . . . . . 2016 - 2030 $ 154,057 2.49% 2015 - 2030 $ 173,010 2.41%

Medium-term notes(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2025 96,997 1.53 2015 - 2024 114,556 1.42

Other(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2038 27,772 4.88 2015 - 2038 32,941 4.65

Total senior fixed . . . . . . . . . . . . 278,826 2.39 320,507 2.29

Senior floating:

Medium-term notes(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2019 20,791 0.27 2015 - 2019 24,469 0.15

Connecticut Avenue Securities(5)

. . . 2023 - 2028 10,764 3.84 2023 - 2024 6,041 2.97

Other(6)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2020 - 2037 368 10.46 2020 - 2037 363 8.71

Total senior floating . . . . . . . . . . 31,923 1.58 30,873 0.81

Subordinated debentures. . . . . . . . . . . . 2019 4,227 9.93 2019 3,849 9.93

Secured borrowings(7)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2021 - 2022 152 1.47 2021 - 2022 202 1.90

Total long-term debt of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . 315,128 2.41 355,431 2.24

Debt of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2054 2,810,593 2.94 2015 - 2054 2,760,152 3.02

Total long-term debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,125,721 2.88% $ 3,115,583 2.93%

Outstanding callable debt of Fannie Mae(8)

. $ 96,199 1.92% $ 114,990 1.79%

__________

(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 $3.2 billion and $4.1 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, 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. Connecticut Avenue Securities are 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 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.
103

Table 26 below displays additional information for each category of our short-term borrowings.

Table 26: Outstanding Short-Term Borrowings(1)

2015

As of December 31 Average During the Year

Outstanding

WeightedAverage

Interest

Rate Outstanding(2)

WeightedAverage

Interest

Rate

Maximum 

Outstanding(3)

(Dollars in millions)

Federal funds purchased and securities sold under

agreements to repurchase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 62 —% $ 42 —% $ 271

Total short-term debt of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 71,007 0.26% $ 88,842 0.17% $ 107,690

2014

As of December 31 Average During the Year

Outstanding

WeightedAverage

Interest

Rate Outstanding(2)

WeightedAverage

Interest

Rate

Maximum 

Outstanding(3)

(Dollars in millions)

Federal funds purchased and securities sold under

agreements to repurchase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 50 —% $ 28 —% $ 273

Total short-term debt of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 105,012 0.11% $ 86,839 0.11% $ 114,741

2013

As of December 31 Average During the Year

Outstanding

WeightedAverage

Interest

Rate Outstanding(2)

WeightedAverage

Interest

Rate

Maximum 

Outstanding(3)

(Dollars in millions)

Federal funds purchased and securities sold under

agreements to repurchase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ — —% $ 15 —% $ 218

Total short-term debt of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 72,295 0.13% $ 95,082 0.13% $ 128,419

__________

(1) Includes the effects of discounts, premiums and other cost basis adjustments.

(2) Average amount outstanding has been calculated using daily balances.

(3) Maximum outstanding represents the highest daily outstanding balance during the year.
104

Contractual Obligations

Table 27 displays, by remaining maturity, our future cash obligations related to our long term debt, announced calls, 

operating leases, purchase obligations and other material non-cancelable contractual obligations.

Table 27: Contractual Obligations

Payment Due by Period as of December 31, 2015

Total

Less than 1

Year

1 to < 3

Years 3 to 5 Years

More than 5

Years

(Dollars in millions)

Long-term debt obligations(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 315,128 $ 52,829 $ 137,525 $ 59,785 $ 64,989

Contractual interest on long-term obligations(2)

. . . 41,794 6,416 9,244 6,414 19,720

Operating lease obligations(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 942 44 78 102 718

Purchase obligations:

Mortgage commitments(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58,715 58,715 — — —

Other purchase obligations(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94 59 26 9 —

Other liabilities reflected in the consolidated 

balance sheet(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 409 371 24 14 —

Total contractual obligations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 417,082 $ 118,434 $ 146,897 $ 66,324 $ 85,427

__________

(1) Represents the carrying amount of our long-term debt assuming payments are made in full at maturity. Amounts exclude $2.8 trillion in 

long-term debt of consolidated trusts. Amounts include a net unamortized discount, fair value adjustments and other cost basis 

adjustments of $3.2 billion.

(2) Excludes contractual interest on long-term debt from consolidations. 

(3) Includes amounts related to office buildings and equipment leases.

(4) Includes on- and off-balance sheet commitments to purchase mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities.

(5) Includes only unconditional purchase obligations that are subject to a cancellation penalty for certain telecommunications services, 

software and computer services, and other agreements. Excludes arrangements that may be canceled without penalty. 

(6) Excludes risk management derivative transactions that may require cash settlement in future periods and our obligations to stand ready 

to perform under our guarantees relating to Fannie Mae MBS and other financial guarantees, because the amount and timing of 

payments under these arrangements are generally contingent upon the occurrence of future events. For a description of the amount of 

our on- and off-balance sheet Fannie Mae MBS and other financial guarantees as of December 31, 2015, see “Off-Balance Sheet 

Arrangements.” Includes cash received as collateral and future cash payments due under our contractual obligations to fund LIHTC and 

other partnerships that are unconditional and legally binding, which are included in our consolidated balance sheets under “Other 

liabilities.”

Equity Funding

As a result of the covenants under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, Treasury’s ownership of the warrant to 

purchase up to 79.9% of the total shares of our common stock outstanding and the uncertainty regarding our future, we 

effectively no longer have access to equity funding except through draws under the senior preferred stock purchase 

agreement. For a description of the funding available and the covenants under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, 

see “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements—Treasury Agreements.”

Cash and Other Investments Portfolio

Table 28 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.
105

Table 28: Cash and Other Investments Portfolio

As of December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Cash and cash equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 14,674 $ 22,023 $ 19,228

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell or similar

arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,350 30,950 38,975

U.S. Treasury securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,485 19,466 16,306

Total cash and other investments. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 71,509 $ 72,439 $ 74,509

Unencumbered Mortgage Portfolio

Another potential source of liquidity in the event our access to the unsecured debt market becomes impaired is the 

unencumbered mortgage assets in our retained mortgage portfolio, which could be sold or used as collateral for secured 

borrowing. We believe that the amount of mortgage-related assets that we could successfully sell or borrow against in the 

event of a liquidity crisis or significant market disruption is substantially lower than the amount of mortgage-related assets 

we hold. Our ability to sell whole loans from our retained mortgage portfolio is limited due to the credit-related issues of 

these loans, as well as operational constraints. See “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the limitations on our ability to 

successfully sell or borrow against the unencumbered mortgage assets in our retained mortgage portfolio in the event of a 

liquidity crisis.

Credit Ratings

Our credit ratings from the major credit ratings organizations, as well as the credit ratings of the U.S. government, are 

primary factors that could affect our ability to access the capital markets and our cost of funds. In addition, our credit ratings 

are important when we seek to engage in certain long-term transactions, such as derivative transactions. S&P, Moody’s and 

Fitch have all indicated that, if they were to lower the sovereign credit ratings on the U.S., they would likely lower their 

ratings on the debt of Fannie Mae and certain other government-related entities. We cannot predict whether one or more of 

these ratings agencies will lower our debt ratings in the future. See “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks to our business 

relating to a decrease in our credit ratings, which could include an increase in our borrowing costs, limits on our ability to 

issue debt, and additional collateral requirements under our derivatives contracts.

Table 29 displays the credit ratings issued by the three major credit rating agencies.

Table 29: Fannie Mae Credit Ratings 

As of December 31, 2015

S&P Moody’s Fitch

Long-term senior debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AA+ Aaa AAA

Short-term senior debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-1+ P-1 F1+

Subordinated debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . AA- Aa2 AAPreferred stock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D Ca C/RR6

Outlook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stable Stable Stable

(for Long-Term

Senior Debt and

Subordinated Debt)

(for Long-Term

Senior Debt and

Preferred Stock)

(for AAA rated LongTerm Issuer Default

Ratings)

We have no covenants in our existing debt agreements that would be violated by a downgrade in our credit ratings. However, 

in connection with certain derivatives counterparties, we could be required to provide additional collateral to or terminate 

transactions with certain counterparties in the event that our senior unsecured debt ratings are downgraded. The amount of 

additional collateral required depends on the contract and is usually a fixed incremental amount, the market value of the 

exposure, or both. See “Note 9, Derivative Instruments” and “Risk Factors” for additional information on collateral we would 

be required to provide to our derivatives counterparties in the event of downgrades in our credit ratings.
106

Cash Flows

Year Ended December 31, 2015. Cash and cash equivalents decreased by $7.3 billion from $22.0 billion as of December 31, 

2014 to $14.7 billion as of December 31, 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) the sale of Fannie Mae MBS to third parties, (2) proceeds 

from repayments and sales of loans of Fannie Mae, (3) the sale of our acquired property and (4) proceeds from the sale and 

liquidation of mortgage-related securities.

Year Ended December 31, 2014. Cash and cash equivalents increased by $2.8 billion from $19.2 billion as of December 31, 

2013 to $22.0 billion as of December 31, 2014. This increase in the balance 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, (3) the sale of 

our acquired property, (4) proceeds from the sale and liquidation of mortgage-related securities and (5) proceeds from 

resolution and settlement agreements related to PLS sold to us.

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 payment of dividends to Treasury under our senior preferred stock purchase agreement 

and (3) the acquisition of delinquent loans out of MBS trusts.

Capital Management

Regulatory Capital

FHFA stated that, during conservatorship, our existing statutory and FHFA-directed regulatory capital requirements will not 

be binding and that FHFA will not issue quarterly capital classifications. We submit capital reports to FHFA and FHFA

monitors our capital levels. We report GAAP net worth and the deficit of our core capital over statutory minimum capital in 

our periodic reports on Form 10-Q and Form 10-K. FHFA has stated that it does not intend to report our critical, risk-based 

capital or subordinated debt levels during the conservatorship. For information on our minimum capital requirements see 

“Note 14, Regulatory Capital Requirements.”

Capital Activity

The Director of FHFA directs us to make dividend payments on the senior preferred stock on a quarterly basis. Our fourth 

quarter 2015 dividend of $2.2 billion was declared by FHFA and subsequently paid by us on December 31, 2015, bringing 

our senior preferred stock dividends paid in 2015 to $10.3 billion. Based on the terms of the senior preferred stock, we expect 

to pay Treasury a dividend for the first quarter of 2016 of $2.9 billion by March 31, 2016. 

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 was $1.8 billion for dividend periods in 2015, 

decreased to $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. As a result of the “net worth sweep” dividend we pay to Treasury each quarter, we cannot 

retain capital from the earnings generated by our business operations.

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 our 

senior preferred stock purchase agreement, Treasury made a commitment to provide funding, under certain conditions, to 

eliminate deficiencies in our net worth. As of the date of this filing, the amount of remaining available funding under our 

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 from Treasury 

under the agreement. See “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements—Treasury Agreements” for more 

information on the terms of our senior preferred stock and our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. See 

“Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks relating to our dividend obligations to Treasury on our senior preferred stock. 
107

OFF-BALANCE SHEET ARRANGEMENTS

We enter into certain business arrangements to facilitate our statutory purpose of providing liquidity to the secondary 

mortgage market and to reduce our exposure to interest rate fluctuations. Some of these arrangements are not recorded in our 

consolidated balance sheets or may be recorded in amounts different from the full contract or notional amount of the 

transaction, depending on the nature or structure of, and accounting required to be applied to, the arrangement. These 

arrangements are commonly referred to as “off-balance sheet arrangements” and expose us to potential losses in excess of the 

amounts recorded in our consolidated balance sheets.

Our off-balance sheet arrangements result primarily from the following:

• our guaranty of mortgage loan securitization and resecuritization transactions over which we do not have control;

• other guaranty transactions;

• liquidity support transactions; and

• partnership interests.

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 $27.5 billion as of December 31, 2015 and $31.7 

billion as of December 31, 2014.

For more information on the mortgage loans underlying both our on- and off-balance sheet Fannie Mae MBS, as well as 

whole mortgage loans that we own, see “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management.”

Partnership Investment Interests 

For partnership investments where we have determined that we are the primary beneficiary, we have consolidated these 

investments and recorded all of the partnership assets and liabilities in our consolidated balance sheet. Our partnership 

investments primarily consist of investments in affordable rental and for-sale housing partnerships. The carrying value of our 

partnership investments, including those we have consolidated, totaled $516 million as of December 31, 2015, compared to 

$721 million as of December 31, 2014.

LIHTC Partnership Interests 

In most instances, we are not the primary beneficiary of our LIHTC partnership investments, and therefore our consolidated 

balance sheets reflect only our investment in the LIHTC partnership, rather than the full amount of the LIHTC partnership’s 

assets and liabilities. FHFA informed us in 2009 that, after consultation with Treasury, generally we are not authorized to sell 

or transfer our LIHTC partnership interests. Some exceptions to this rule exist in very limited circumstances and, in most 

cases, only with FHFA consent. In 2009, we reduced the carrying value of our LIHTC partnership investments to zero, as we 

no longer had both the intent and ability to sell or otherwise transfer our LIHTC investments for value. However, we still 

have an obligation to fund our LIHTC partnership investments and have recorded such obligation as a liability in our 

financial statements. We did not make any LIHTC investments in 2015, other than pursuant to existing prior commitments.

Treasury Housing Finance Agency Initiative

During 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 two primary programs, which 

together comprise what we refer to as the HFA initiative.

In November 2011, we entered into an Omnibus Consent to HFA Initiative Program Modifications with Treasury, Freddie 

Mac and FHFA pursuant to which the parties agreed to specified modifications to the HFA initiative programs, including a 

three-year extension of the expiration date for the temporary credit and liquidity facilities (“TCLFs”) from December 2012 to 

December 2015. See “Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence—Transactions with 

Related Persons—Transactions with Treasury—Treasury Housing Finance Agency Initiative” for a discussion of the HFA

initiative.

Pursuant to the TCLF program that we describe in “Related Parties” in “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting 

Policies,” Treasury had purchased participation interests in TCLFs provided by us and Freddie Mac to the HFAs. These 

facilities created a credit and liquidity backstop for the HFAs. We had $390 million in outstanding commitments under the 
108

TCLF program as of December 31, 2014. As of December 31, 2015, we did not have any outstanding commitments under the 

TCLF program as the program ended as scheduled.

Multifamily Bond Credit Enhancement Liquidity Commitments

Our total outstanding liquidity commitments to advance funds for securities backed by multifamily housing revenue bonds 

totaled $11.4 billion as of December 31, 2015 and $12.3 billion as of December 31, 2014. These commitments require us to 

advance funds to third parties that enable them to repurchase tendered bonds or securities that are unable to be remarketed. 

We hold cash and cash equivalents in our cash and other investments portfolio in excess of these commitments to advance 

funds.

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. Our risk management framework is intended to provide the basis for the principles that govern our 

risk management activities. 

• Credit Risk. Credit risk is the potential for financial loss resulting from the failure of a borrower or institutional 

counterparty to honor its financial or contractual obligations, resulting in a potential loss of earnings. In regards to 

financial securities or instruments, credit risk is the risk of not receiving principal, interest or any other financial 

obligation on a timely basis, for any reason. Credit risk exists primarily in connection with our mortgage credit book of 

business and our institutional counterparties.

• Market Risk. Market risk is the exposure generated by adverse changes in the value of financial instruments caused by 

a change in market prices or interest rates. Two significant market risks we face and actively manage are interest rate 

risk and liquidity risk. Interest rate risk is the risk of changes in our long-term earnings or in the value of our assets due 

to fluctuations in interest rates. Liquidity risk is our potential inability to meet our funding obligations in a timely 

manner. 

• Operational Risk. Operational risk is the loss or harm resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people, 

systems or from external events. 

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 “Business—Housing 

Finance Reform” and in “Risk Factors.” 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, 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. These risks are typically brought to the attention of our Management Committee, our Board of 

Directors or one or more of the Board’s committees and, in some cases, FHFA for discussion. 

Another risk that can impact our financial condition and earnings is model risk, which is defined as the potential for model 

errors to adversely affect the company. This risk exists because of our use of modeled estimations of future economic 

environments, borrower behavior and valuation methodologies. See “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks associated 

with our reliance on models. 

Our risk management framework and governance structure are intended to provide comprehensive controls and ongoing 

management of the major risks inherent in our business activities. Our ability to identify, assess, mitigate and control, and 

report and monitor risk is crucial to our safety and soundness. 

• Risk Identification. Risk identification is the process of finding, recognizing and describing risk. The identification of 

risk facilitates effective risk management by achieving awareness of the sources, impact and magnitude of risk. 

• Risk Assessment. We assess risk using a variety of methodologies, such as calculation of potential losses from loans 

and stress tests relating to interest rate sensitivity. When we assess risk, we look at metrics such as frequency, severity, 

concentration, correlation, volatility and loss. Information obtained from these assessments is reviewed on a regular 

basis to ensure that our risk assumptions are reasonable and reflect our current positions. 
109

• Risk Mitigation & Control. We proactively develop appropriate mitigation strategies to prevent excessive risk 

exposure, address risks that exceed established tolerances and address risks that create unanticipated business impact. 

Mitigation strategies and controls can be in the form of reduction, transference, acceptance or avoidance of the 

identified risk. 

• Risk Reporting & Monitoring. Our business units actively monitor emerging and identified risks that are taken when 

executing our strategies. Risks and concerns are reported to the appropriate level of management to ensure that action is 

taken to mitigate the risk. 

We manage risk by using a “three lines of defense” structure which distinguishes between functions that own and manage 

risks, functions that oversee risks, and functions that provide independent assurance. The first line of defense is comprised of 

the business units, operations and support functions. The first line of defense is accountable for the ownership and 

management of the risk created by its operations or activities and is charged with conforming to the risk guidelines, risk 

appetite, risk policies and limits approved by the Board of Directors and/or appropriate management-level risk committee. 

The second line of defense is comprised of Enterprise Risk Management, Compliance and Ethics, and the Enterprise Project 

Management Office, and is responsible for the independent oversight and monitoring of risk management and control 

activities. The third line of defense is the Internal Audit group, which is responsible for ensuring all parties are performing the 

actions for which they are accountable and for identifying any omissions or potential process improvements. 

Enterprise Risk Governance 

Our enterprise risk management structure consists of the Board of Directors, executive leadership, including the Chief Risk 

Officer, Deputy Chief Risk Officer and Chief Credit Officer, and the Enterprise Risk Management division, designated 

officers responsible for managing our financial risks, business unit chief risk officers and management-level risk committees. 

This structure is designed to encourage a culture of accountability within the divisions and promote effective risk 

management throughout the company. 

Our organizational structure and risk management framework work in conjunction with each other to identify risk-related 

trends with respect to customers, products or portfolios and external events and to develop appropriate strategies to mitigate 

emerging and identified risks.

Under our enterprise risk management framework, each business unit is responsible for managing its risks but is subject to an 

oversight process that includes independent oversight functions, management-level risk committees and Board-level 

engagement. 

Board of Directors 

The Risk Policy & Capital Committee of the Board, pursuant to its Charter and FHFA regulations, assists the Board in 

overseeing our management of risk and recommends for Board approval enterprise risk governance policy and limits. In 

addition, the Audit Committee reviews the system of internal controls that we rely upon to provide reasonable assurance of 

compliance with our enterprise risk management processes.

The Board of Directors delegates certain authorities to the Chief Executive Officer and management-level committees. 

Responsibility for setting appropriate controls such as management limits and policies is delegated to the management-level 

risk committees. In addition, certain activities require the approval of our conservator. See “Directors, Executive Officers and 

Corporate Governance—Corporate Governance—Conservatorship and Delegation of Authority to Board of Directors” for 

information about these activities. 

Our Board of Directors has established and maintains oversight of our enterprise-wide risk management program, in 

accordance with FHFA regulations. The regulations specify that our enterprise-wide risk management program must include 

certain risk limitations, appropriate policies and procedures, provisions for monitoring compliance, as well as effective and 

timely implementation of corrective actions. See “Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance—Corporate 

Governance—Board Leadership Structure; Risk Management Oversight” for information about these responsibilities.

Enterprise Risk Management Division

Our Enterprise Risk Management division reports directly to the Chief Risk Officer who reports directly to the Chief 

Executive Officer. The Chief Risk Officer also reports independently to the Board’s Risk Policy & Capital Committee and 

may be removed only upon Board approval. Enterprise Risk Management is responsible for the identification of emerging 

risks, the monitoring and reporting of risk within the existing policies and limits, and independent oversight of risk 

management across the company.
110

Risk Committees

We use our management-level risk committees as a forum for establishing corporate risk policies and risk parameters within 

which the business must operate. They are also used to discuss emerging risks and risk mitigation strategies and to 

communicate across business lines. Risk committees enhance the risk management framework by reinforcing our risk 

management culture and providing accountability for the resolution of key risk issues and decisions. Committees are 

populated with key business and risk leaders.

The primary management-level business risk committees include the Asset and Liability Committee, the Enterprise Risk 

Committee, the Model Risk Oversight Committee, the Operational Risk Committee, the Capital Committee, the Third Party 

Risk Committee, the Multifamily Risk Committee and the Single-Family Risk Committee. On a periodic basis, the Chief 

Risk Officer prepares a detailed summary of current and emerging risks and compliance with risk limits and other risk 

reports, and reports on these matters to the Risk Policy & Capital Committee of the Board. The Chief Risk Officer also 

reports periodically on issues that are escalated from the management-level risk committees and on other topics to the Risk 

Policy & Capital Committee of the Board, as appropriate. 

In addition to the risk committees, the Management Committee is typically notified of risks that could adversely impact our 

business, financial condition and earnings, including human capital, legal, regulatory and compliance, reputational, 

technological and cybersecurity, strategic and execution risks.

Internal Audit 

Our Internal Audit group, under the direction of the Chief Audit Executive, provides an objective assessment of the design 

and execution of our internal control system, including our management systems, risk governance and policies and 

procedures. The Chief Audit Executive reports directly and independently to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, 

and audit personnel are compensated based on objectives set for the group by the Audit Committee rather than corporate 

financial results or goals. The Chief Audit Executive reports administratively to the Chief Executive Officer and may be 

removed only upon approval by the Board’s Audit Committee. Internal audit activities are designed to provide reasonable 

assurance that resources are safeguarded; that significant financial, managerial and operating information is complete, 

accurate and reliable; and that employee actions comply with our policies and applicable laws and regulations. 

Compliance and Ethics 

The Compliance and Ethics division, under the direction of the Chief Compliance Officer, is dedicated to developing and 

maintaining policies and procedures to help ensure that Fannie Mae and its employees comply with the law, our Code of 

Conduct and all regulatory obligations. The Chief Compliance Officer reports directly to our Chief Executive Officer and 

independently to the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors, and Compliance and Ethics personnel are compensated on 

objectives set for the group by the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors rather than corporate financial results or goals. 

The Chief Compliance Officer may be removed only upon Board approval. The Chief Compliance Officer is responsible for 

overseeing our compliance activities; developing and promoting a code of ethical conduct; evaluating and investigating any 

allegations of misconduct; and overseeing and coordinating regulatory reporting and examinations.

Credit Risk Management

We are generally subject to two types of credit risk: mortgage credit risk and institutional counterparty credit risk. The 

metrics used to measure credit risk are generated using internal models. Our internal models require numerous assumptions 

and there are inherent limitations in any methodology used to estimate macroeconomic factors such as home prices, 

unemployment and interest rates, and their impact on borrower behavior. When market conditions change rapidly and 

dramatically, the assumptions of our models may no longer accurately capture or reflect the changing conditions. 

Management periodically makes judgments about the appropriateness of the risk assessments indicated by the models. See 

“Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks associated with our use of models.

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. See “Glossary of Terms Used in This Report” for 

more detail.
111

Mortgage Credit Book of Business

Table 30 displays the composition of our mortgage credit book of business based on unpaid principal balance. Our singlefamily mortgage credit book of business accounted for 93% of our mortgage credit book of business as of December 31, 

2015 and 2014.

Table 30: Composition of Mortgage Credit Book of Business

As of December 31,

2015 2014

SingleFamily Multifamily TotalSingleFamily Multifamily Total

(Dollars in millions)

Mortgage loans and Fannie Mae MBS(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,817,251 $ 198,342 $ 3,015,593 $ 2,837,211 $ 187,300 $ 3,024,511

Unconsolidated Fannie Mae MBS, held by third 

parties(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,818 1,226 11,044 11,660 1,267 12,927

Other credit guarantees(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,652 13,852 16,504 4,033 14,748 18,781

Guaranty book of business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,829,721 $ 213,420 $ 3,043,141 $ 2,852,904 $ 203,315 $ 3,056,219

Agency mortgage-related securities(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,973 7 5,980 6,932 8 6,940

Other mortgage-related securities(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,365 6,469 16,834 19,973 7,970 27,943

Mortgage credit book of business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,846,059 $ 219,896 $ 3,065,955 $ 2,879,809 $ 211,293 $ 3,091,102

Guaranty Book of Business Detail:

Conventional Guaranty Book of Business(6)

. . . . . . $ 2,778,254 $ 211,975 $ 2,990,229 $ 2,795,666 $ 201,763 $ 2,997,429

Government Guaranty Book of Business(7)

. . . . . . . $ 51,467 $ 1,445 $ 52,912 $ 57,238 $ 1,552 $ 58,790

__________

(1) Consists of mortgage loans and Fannie Mae MBS recognized in our 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) Refers to 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) Refers to 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 HUD 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. Our new 

business purchases were $515.5 billion for the year ended December 31, 2015. Accordingly, we recognized an expense of 

$217 million related to this obligation for the year ended December 31, 2015. We expect to pay this amount to the funds on or 

before February 29, 2016. See “Business—Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities—The GSE Act—Affordable 

Housing Allocations” for more information regarding this obligation.

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 December 31, 2015 and 2014. 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” for a discussion of the risk 

that we could experience mortgage fraud as a result of this reliance on lender representations.
112

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).”

In evaluating our single-family mortgage credit risk, we closely monitor changes in housing and economic conditions and the 

impact of those changes on the credit risk profile and performance of our single-family mortgage credit book of business. We 

regularly review and provide updates to our underwriting standards and eligibility guidelines that take into consideration 

changing market conditions. The credit risk profile of our single-family mortgage credit book of business is influenced by, 

among other things, the credit profile of the borrower, features of the loan, such as the loan product type and the type of 

property securing the loan, the housing market and the general economy. We focus more on those loans that we believe pose 

a higher risk of default, which typically have been loans associated with higher mark-to-market LTV ratios, loans to 

borrowers with lower FICO credit scores and certain higher risk loan product categories, such as Alt-A loans. 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.

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. As part of our 

regular evaluation of Desktop Underwriter, we conduct periodic examinations of the underlying risk assessment models and 

recalibrate the models based on actual loan performance and market assumptions to improve Desktop Underwriter’s ability to 

effectively analyze risk. Subject to our prior approval, we also may purchase and securitize mortgage loans that have been 

underwritten using other automated underwriting systems, as well as manually underwritten mortgage loans that meet our 

stated underwriting requirements or meet agreed-upon standards that differ from our standard underwriting and eligibility 

criteria. We periodically update Desktop Underwriter to reflect changes to both our underwriting and eligibility guidelines 

and to 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. 

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

certainty, efficiency and lower costs, including making new verification tools such as Collateral Underwriter and Early Check 

available to lenders and eliminating fees charged to customers for using our Desktop Underwriter and Desktop Originator 

systems. We expect to implement a number of enhancements to Desktop Underwriter in 2016 to further help our lender 

customers originate mortgages with increased efficiency and lower costs and to help increase access to credit for creditworthy 

borrowers. For more information about the changes we implemented in 2015 and that we expect to implement in 2016 to 

provide value to our customers, see “Business—Executive Summary—Serving Customer Needs and Improving Our Business 

Efficiency.”

Table 31 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 “SingleFamily Portfolio Diversification and Monitoring—Credit Profile Summary—HARP and Refi Plus Loans.”
113

Table 31: Selected Credit Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Guaranty Book of Business, by Acquisition 

Period

As of December 31, 2015

% 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)

2009-2015 acquisitions, excluding HARP and other Refi

Plus loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 % 59 % * % 0.24 %

HARP loans(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 81 14 1.16

Other Refi Plus loans(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 48 * 0.41

2005-2008 acquisitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 77 17 7.39

2004 and prior acquisitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 45 1 3.07

Total single-family conventional guaranty book of

business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 62 % 3 % 1.55 %

As of December 31, 2014

% 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)

2009-2014 acquisitions, excluding HARP and other Refi

Plus loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 % 60 % * % 0.24 %

HARP loans(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 86 19 1.04

Other Refi Plus loans(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 51 * 0.37

2005-2008 acquisitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 81 22 8.17

2004 and prior acquisitions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 48 2 3.28

Total single-family conventional guaranty book of

business. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 64 % 5 % 1.89 %

__________

 * 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 December 31, 2015 and 2014.

(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 applicable 

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 applicable period divided by the aggregate unpaid principal 

balance of loans for each category in our single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015 and 2014.

(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 December 31, 2015 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 new representation and warranty framework, 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 
114

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 December 31, 

2015, the eligibility defect rate for our single-family non-Refi Plus loan acquisitions made during the twelve months ended 

April 30, 2015 was 1.16%. 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 new 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 

strengthened our underwriting standards in late 2008 and 2009, implemented changes to our quality control process in 2013 

and implemented our new representation and warranty framework described below. As of December 31, 2015, we had issued 

repurchase requests on approximately 0.35% of the $446.9 billion of unpaid principal balance of single-family loans 

delivered to us during the twelve months ended May 2015. 

Our total outstanding repurchase requests as of December 31, 2015 were $696 million, compared with $1.0 billion as of 

December 31, 2014. 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 is 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 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 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. 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 enhance our representation and warranty framework. In November 2014, we issued a lender 

announcement updating and clarifying aspects of our new representation and warranty framework, particularly relating to the 

“life of loan” representations and warranties that are not eligible for repurchase relief. In October 2015, we issued a lender 

announcement on alternatives to repurchase that may be offered to lenders in the event of underwriting defects, including 

providing lenders with specific guidance on what types of loan defects could lead to a repurchase request or an alternative 

remedy. We believe the changes we have made to our representation and warranty framework, 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 enhance our representation and warranty 

framework, providing the mortgage finance industry with more certainty and transparency regarding selling representation 

and warranty obligations. In February 2016, we announced a new independent dispute resolution process to resolve 

disagreements over repurchase requests in a timely fashion when needed. This independent dispute resolution process will be 

available for loans delivered on and after January 1, 2016.

As of December 31, 2015, approximately 38% of the outstanding loans in our single-family conventional guaranty book of 

business were acquired under the new representation and warranty framework, compared with 29% as of December 31, 2014. 

Table 32 below displays information regarding the relief status of single-family conventional loans, based on payment history 
115

or the satisfactory conclusion of a quality control review, delivered to us beginning in 2013 under the new representation and 

warranty framework. 

Table 32: Representation and Warranty Status of Single-Family Conventional Loans Acquired in 2013-2015 

As of December 31, 2015

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 165,069 1,135,903 $ 21,924 97,199 $ 186,993 1,233,102

Remain eligible for relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33,190 220,006 1,053,727 5,100,603 1,086,917 5,320,609

Are not eligible for relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,643 23,636 7,001 37,619 10,644 61,255

Total outstanding loans acquired under the

new representation and warranty

framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 201,902 1,379,545 $1,082,652 5,235,421 $1,284,554 6,614,966

As of December 31, 2014

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 141,393 927,345 $ — — $ 141,393 927,345

Remain eligible for relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,154 319,830 781,590 3,733,863 828,744 4,053,693

Are not eligible for relief . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,686 16,890 9,043 44,387 11,729 61,277

Total outstanding loans acquired under the

new representation and warranty

framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 191,233 1,264,065 $ 790,633 3,778,250 $ 981,866 5,042,315

As of December 31, 2015, approximately 19% of loans acquired under the new representation and warranty framework had 

obtained relief. 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 Enhancements

As discussed in “Business—Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities—Charter Act,” our charter generally requires 

credit enhancement on any single-family conventional mortgage loan that we purchase or securitize if it has an LTV ratio 

over 80% at the time of purchase. However, under HARP, we allow our borrowers who have mortgage loans with current 

LTV ratios above 80% to refinance their mortgages without obtaining new mortgage insurance in excess of what was already 

in place. See “Credit Profile Summary—HARP and Refi Plus Loans” below for more discussion of HARP and its impact on 

our single-family conventional business volume and guaranty book of business.

Borrower-paid primary mortgage insurance is the most common type of credit enhancement in our single-family guaranty 

book of business. Primary mortgage insurance transfers varying portions of the credit risk associated with a mortgage loan to 

a third-party insurer. In order for us to receive a payment in settlement of a claim under a primary mortgage insurance policy, 

the insured loan must be in default and the borrower’s interest in the property that secured the loan must have been 
116

extinguished, generally in a foreclosure action. The claims process for primary mortgage insurance typically takes three to six 

months after title to the property has been transferred.

Mortgage insurers may also provide pool mortgage insurance, which is insurance that applies to a defined group of loans. 

Pool mortgage insurance benefits typically are based on actual loss incurred and are subject to an aggregate loss limit. Under 

some of our pool mortgage insurance policies, we are required to meet specified loss deductibles before we can recover under 

the policy. We typically collect claims under pool mortgage insurance three to six months after disposition of the property 

that secured the loan. For a discussion of our aggregate mortgage insurance coverage as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, see 

“Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk Management—Credit Guarantors—

Mortgage Insurers.” 

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. Our primary method of achieving this 

objective has been through CAS and CIRT transactions. As of December 31, 2015, we had completed a total of nine CAS 

transactions since the CAS program began in 2013 and seven CIRT transactions since the CIRT program began in 2014. 

Approximately 15% of the loans in our single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015, 

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, including structures that 

transfer first loss risk. In the aggregate, our credit risk transfer transactions completed through December 31, 2015 transferred 

a significant portion of the mortgage credit risk on single-family mortgages with an unpaid principal balance of over $500 

billion. 

We have transferred a significant portion of the mortgage credit risk on over 95% of the single-family loans we acquired 

during the twelve months ended November 2014 that were in our targeted loan categories for our credit risk transfer 

transactions. Loan categories we have targeted for credit risk transactions generally consist of fixed-rate 30-year singlefamily conventional loans that meet certain credit performance characteristics, are non-Refi Plus and have LTV ratios 

between 60% and 97%. Based on their characteristics at the time we acquired them, over 50% of the single-family loans we 

acquired during the twelve months ended November 2014 were included in loan categories we have targeted for our credit 

risk transfer transactions. 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 a portion of the mortgage credit risk associated with losses on a reference pool of mortgage 

loans to investors in these securities. 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). The mezzanine risk position included in a CAS transaction 

typically exceeds our estimated stress losses for the reference pool. We recognize CAS notes we issue to investors at fair 

value as “Debt of Fannie Mae” in our consolidated balance sheets, with gains and losses included as a component of “Fair 

value gains (losses), net” in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. The CAS notes are issued 

with a stated final maturity date of either 10 or 12.5 years from issuance.

We are obligated to make payments of principal and interest on the CAS notes we issue, and we recognize the interest paid as 

“Long-term debt interest expense” in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. The principal 

balance of CAS notes is reduced as a result of principal liquidations of loans in the reference pool. The principal balance is 

also reduced when specified credit events occur on the loans in the reference pool. These reductions in the principal balance 

reduce the total amount of payments we are obligated to make to investors on the CAS notes. Principal reductions resulting 

from credit events will first occur on the first loss tranches, which we retained for all CAS transactions completed through 

December 31, 2015, until the first loss tranches are reduced to zero, at which time the outstanding principal balance of CAS 

notes begin to be reduced. 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.

In our CAS transactions through the third quarter of 2015, the reduction in the principal balances of CAS notes as a result of 

credit events was based on a predefined formula. In October 2015, we completed our first CAS transaction that calculates 

credit event losses based on the actual loss experience associated with the reference pool of mortgage loans, generally 
117

following the final disposition of the underlying properties. We provide monthly disclosures to help investors monitor the 

ongoing performance of their investments in the CAS notes.

CIRT deals are insurance transactions whereby we obtain actual loss coverage on pools of loans either directly from an 

insurance provider who retains the risk, or from an insurance provider who 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. The detachment point of the insurance layer 

typically exceeds our estimated stress losses for the pool. We currently retain the risk of any remaining losses. Insurance 

benefits are paid 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 a ten-year term. 

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 the counterparty. 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 

consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. 

Table 33 displays the mortgage credit risk transferred to third parties and retained by Fannie Mae pursuant to our CAS and 

CIRT transactions. 

Table 33: Credit Risk Transferred Pursuant to CAS and CIRT Transactions

At Issuance

As of

December 31,

2015

Retained by Fannie Mae

Credit Risk

Transferred

to Third

Parties

First

Loss

Position

Mezzanine

Loss

Position

Senior Loss

Position

Mezzanine 

Loss 

Position(1)

Total Initial 

Reference 

Pool(2)

Total 

Outstanding 

Reference 

Pool(1)(2)

(Dollars in millions)

CAS issuances:

2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,058 $ 312 $ 181,282 $ 5,921 $ 188,573 $ 167,529

2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 845 355 215,175 5,849 222,224 189,362

2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 47 25,954 675 26,756 21,630

Total CAS issuances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,983 $ 714 $ 422,411 $ 12,445 $ 437,553 $ 378,521

CIRT transactions:. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 202 $ 39,104 $ 1,008 $ 40,314 $ 37,811

2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 6,195 192 6,419 4,679

Total CIRT transactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 234 $ 45,299 $ 1,200 $ 46,733 $ 42,490

Total CAS and CIRT transactions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 484,286 $ 421,011

Total outstanding reference pool as a percentage of single-family conventional guaranty book of business . 15.15 %

__________

(1) Includes $12.2 billion outstanding for the mezzanine loss tranche transferred to third parties as of December 31, 2015. 

(2) For CIRT transactions, “reference pool” reflects a pool of covered loans. 

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. 
118

Although we have designed our CAS and CIRT transactions to mitigate some of our potential future credit losses, these 

transactions may provide less protection than we expect. In addition, these transactions are 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 

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.

The profile of our guaranty book of business is comprised of the following key loan attributes:

• LTV ratio. LTV ratio is a strong predictor of credit performance. The likelihood of default and the gross severity of a 

loss in the event of default are typically lower as the LTV ratio decreases. This also applies to the estimated mark-tomarket LTV ratios, particularly those over 100%, as this indicates that the borrower’s mortgage balance exceeds the 

property value.

• Product type. Certain loan product types have features that may result in increased risk. Generally, intermediate-term, 

fixed-rate mortgages exhibit the lowest default rates, followed by long-term, fixed-rate mortgages. Historically, 

adjustable-rate mortgages (“ARMs”), including negative-amortizing and interest-only loans, and balloon/reset 

mortgages have exhibited higher default rates than fixed-rate mortgages, partly because the borrower’s payments rose, 

within limits, as interest rates changed.

• Number of units. Mortgages on one-unit properties tend to have lower credit risk than mortgages on two-, three- or 

four-unit properties.

• Property type. Certain property types have a higher risk of default. For example, condominiums generally are 

considered to have higher credit risk than single-family detached properties.

• Occupancy type. Mortgages on properties occupied by the borrower as a primary or secondary residence tend to have 

lower credit risk than mortgages on investment properties.

• Credit score. Credit score is a measure often used by the financial services industry, including our company, to assess 

borrower credit quality and the likelihood that a borrower will repay future obligations as expected. A higher credit 

score typically indicates lower credit risk.

• Loan purpose. Loan purpose refers to how the borrower intends to use the funds from a mortgage loan—either for a 

home purchase or refinancing of an existing mortgage. Cash-out refinancings have a higher risk of default than either 

mortgage loans used for the purchase of a property or other refinancings that restrict the amount of cash returned to 

the borrower.

• Geographic concentration. Local economic conditions affect borrowers’ ability to repay loans and the value of 

collateral underlying loans. Geographic diversification reduces mortgage credit risk.

• Loan age. We monitor year of origination and loan age, which is defined as the number of years since origination. 

Credit losses on mortgage loans typically do not peak until the third through six years following origination; however, 

this range can vary based on many factors, including changes in macroeconomic conditions and foreclosure timelines.

Table 34 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.
119

Table 34: Risk Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Business Volume and Guaranty Book of Business(1)

Percent of Single-Family

Conventional Business Volume(2)

For the Year Ended December 31,

Percent of Single-Family

Conventional Guaranty Book of Business(3)(4)

As of December 31,

2015 2014 2013 2015 2014 2013

Original LTV ratio:(5)

<= 60% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 % 16 % 22 % 21 % 21 % 22 %

60.01% to 70% . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12 14 14 14 15

70.01% to 80% . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 40 35 38 38 38

80.01% to 90%(6). . . . . . . . . . . 12 13 10 11 11 10

90.01% to 100%(6). . . . . . . . . . 15 16 12 12 11 10

100.01% to 125%(6). . . . . . . . . 1 2 4 3 3 3

Greater than 125%(6). . . . . . . . . * 1 3 1 2 2

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Weighted average . . . . . . . . 75 % 77 % 76 % 75 % 75 % 74 %

Average loan amount. . . . . . . . . . . $220,090 $202,834 $204,750 $160,741 $159,997 $160,357

Estimated mark-to-market LTV

ratio:(7)

<= 60% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46 % 42 % 38 %

60.01% to 70% . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 19 19

70.01% to 80% . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 18 19

80.01% to 90% . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 11

90.01% to 100% . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 6

100.01% to 125% . . . . . . . . . . . 2 4 5

Greater than 125% . . . . . . . . . . 1 1 2

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 %

Weighted average . . . . . . . . 62 % 64 % 67 %

Product type:

Fixed-rate:(8)

Long-term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81 % 78 % 76 % 76 % 74 % 72 %

Intermediate-term . . . . . . . . 17 17 22 17 17 18

Interest-only. . . . . . . . . . . . . — — * * 1 1

Total fixed-rate . . . . . . . . 98 95 98 93 92 91

Adjustable-rate:

Interest-only. . . . . . . . . . . . . — * * 2 2 2

Other ARMs. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5 2 5 6 7

Total adjustable-rate . . . . 2 5 2 7 8 9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Number of property units:

1 unit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 % 97 % 97 % 97 % 97 % 97 %

2-4 units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 3 3 3 3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Property type:

Single-family homes . . . . . . . . 90 % 90 % 90 % 91 % 91 % 91 %

Condo/Co-op . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 10 10 9 9 9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Occupancy type:

Primary residence. . . . . . . . . . . 88 % 87 % 87 % 88 % 88 % 88 %

Second/vacation home . . . . . . . 4 4 4 4 4 4

Investor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 9 9 8 8 8

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %
120

Percent of Single-Family

Conventional Business Volume(2)

For the Year Ended December 31,

Percent of Single-Family

Conventional Guaranty Book of Business(3)(4)

As of December 31,

2015 2014 2013 2015 2014 2013

FICO credit score at origination:

< 620(9). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 % 1 % 1 % 2 % 3 % 3 %

620 to < 660. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 4 5 5 5

660 to < 700. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 13 10 12 12 12

700 to < 740. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 21 18 20 19 19

>= 740 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 59 67 61 61 61

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Weighted average . . . . . . . . 748 744 753 744 744 744

Loan purpose:

Purchase. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 % 52 % 30 % 33 % 31 % 28 %

Cash-out refinance. . . . . . . . . . 19 16 14 20 20 21

Other refinance . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 32 56 47 49 51

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Geographic concentration:(10)

Midwest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 % 15 % 14 % 15 % 15 % 15 %

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 15 17 19 19 19

Southeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 20 22 22 22

Southwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 20 17 16 16 16

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 30 32 28 28 28

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

Origination year:

<= 2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 % 13 % 16 %

2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 4 5

2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 3

2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 6 7

2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 9 10

2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 10 11

2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 24 26

2013 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 21 22

2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 11 —

2015 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 — —

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 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.

(4) Our single-family conventional guaranty book of business includes jumbo-conforming and high-balance loans that represented 

approximately 5% of our single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013. See 

“Business—Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities—Charter Act—Loan Standards” and “Credit Profile Summary—JumboConforming and High-Balance Loans” 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%.
121

(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 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 2015 continued to have a strong credit profile with a weighted average original LTV ratio of 75% 

compared with 77% in 2014. Our acquisition of loans with original LTV ratios over 80% decreased to 28% in 2015, 

compared with 32% in 2014. This decrease was primarily due to an increase in our acquisitions of refinance loans, which 

increased to 55% in 2015, compared with 48% in 2014, and a decline in our acquisitions of home purchase loans and HARP

loans. Home purchase loans and HARP loans typically have higher LTV ratios than non-HARP refinance loans. The weighted 

average FICO credit score of our acquisitions increased to 748 in 2015, compared with 744 in 2014. Our acquisitions of loans 

with FICO credit scores at origination of 740 or above increased to 62% in 2015, compared with 59% in 2014. Our 

acquisition of loans with FICO credit scores at origination of less than 700 decreased to 18% in 2015, compared with 20% in 

2014. 

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

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. In May 2015, FHFA announced the extension of the ending date for 

HARP to December 31, 2016. In addition, we have extended our Refi Plus initiative until December 31, 2016.

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 December 31, 2015, 

HARP loans, which constituted 10% of our single-family book of business, had a weighted average FICO credit score at 

origination of 729 compared with 744 for loans in our single-family book of business overall.

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 
122

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 2% of our total single-family acquisitions in 2015, compared with 

approximately 6% of total single-family acquisitions in 2014 and 14% in 2013. We expect the volume of refinancings under 

HARP to continue to decline, due to a decrease in the 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 December 31, 2015 and 2014 

of single-family loans we acquired under HARP and Refi Plus, compared with other single-family loans we have acquired, 

see “Table 31: Selected Credit Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Guaranty Book of Business, by Acquisition 

Period.”

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-K 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 34: Risk Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Business 

Volume and Guaranty Book of Business,” “Note 3, Mortgage Loans” and “Note 15, 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 $102.3 billion as of December 31, 2015, represented approximately 4% 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.

Jumbo-Conforming and High-Balance Loans

The outstanding unpaid principal balance of our jumbo-conforming and high-balance loans was $149.1 billion, or 5.4% of 

our single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015, compared with $145.0 billion, or 5.2%

of our single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2014. The standard conforming loan limit 

for a one-unit property has been $417,000 since 2006. From 2008 to 2011, our loan limits were higher in specified high-cost 

areas, reaching as high as $729,750 for one-unit properties; however, our loan limits for loans originated after September 30, 

2011 decreased in specified high-cost areas to an amount not to exceed $625,500 for one-unit properties. Our current loan 

limits apply to all new acquisitions; therefore, we cannot refinance any of our existing loans that are above our current loan 

limits. See “Business—Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities—Charter Act—Loan Standards” for additional 

information on our loan limits.

Reverse Mortgages

The outstanding unpaid principal balance of reverse mortgage loans and Fannie Mae MBS backed by reverse mortgage loans 

in our guaranty book of business was $40.9 billion as of December 31, 2015 and $44.7 billion as of December 31, 2014. In 

2010, we ceased acquisitions of newly originated reverse mortgages. The principal balance of our reverse mortgage loans 

could increase over time, as each month the scheduled and unscheduled payments, interest, mortgage insurance premium, 

servicing fee and default-related costs accrue to increase the unpaid principal balance. The majority of these loans are home 

equity conversion mortgages insured by the federal government through FHA. Because home equity conversion mortgages 

are insured by the federal government, we believe that we have limited exposure to credit losses on these loans. 
123

Mortgage Products with Rate Resets

Adjustable-rate mortgages (“ARMs”) are mortgage loans with an interest rate that adjusts periodically over the life of the 

mortgage based on changes in a specified index. Interest-only loans allow the borrower to pay only the monthly interest due, 

and none of the principal, for a fixed term. The majority of our interest-only loans are ARMs. Our negative-amortizing loans 

are ARMs that allow the borrower to make monthly payments that are less than the interest actually accrued for the period. 

The unpaid interest is added to the principal balance of the loan, which increases the outstanding loan balance. ARMs 

represented approximately 7% of our single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015, and 

8% as of December 31, 2014.

Rate reset modifications are mortgage loans we have modified with terms that include a reduction in the borrowers’ interest 

rate that is fixed for an initial period and is followed by one or more annual interest rate increases in the future. 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 $79.1 billion as of December 31, 2015. During 2015, approximately 55%

of these modified loans experienced an interest rate reset to a weighted average interest rate of 3.24%. 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. 

Table 35 displays information for ARMs, rate reset modifications and fixed-rate interest-only loans in our single-family 

guaranty book of business, aggregated by product type and categorized by the year of their next scheduled contractual reset 

date. The contractual reset is either an adjustment to the loan’s interest rate or a scheduled change to the loan’s monthly 

payment to begin to reflect the payment of principal. The timing of the actual reset dates may differ from those presented due 

to a number of factors, including refinancing or exercising of other provisions within the terms of the mortgage.

Table 35: Single-Family Adjustable-Rate Mortgage and Rate Reset Modifications by Year(1)

Reset Year

2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Thereafter Total

(Dollars in millions)

ARMs—Amortizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 32,896 $ 5,266 $ 7,142 $ 11,233 $ 8,879 $ 18,299 $ 83,715

ARMs—Interest Only and Negative

Amortizing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,798 1,127 821 911 825 1,136 32,618

Rate Reset Modifications. . . . . . . . . . . . 56,802 7,828 5,412 4,014 2,201 87 76,344

Fixed-Rate Interest Only . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,748 3,390 704 39 85 153 6,119

__________

(1) Excludes loans for which there is not an additional reset for the remaining life of the loan.

We have not observed a materially different performance trend for interest-only loans or negative-amortizing loans that have 

recently reset as compared to those that are still in the initial period. We believe the current performance trend is the result of 

the current low interest rate environment and do not expect this trend to continue if interest rates rise significantly. We discuss 

interest rate resets for modifications in “Problem Loan Management—Loan Workout Metrics” below.

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 

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.
124

Our problem loan management strategies include transferring servicing on some delinquent loan populations that include 

loans with higher-risk characteristics to special servicers with which we have worked to develop high-touch protocols for 

servicing these loans. We believe retaining special servicers to service these loans using high-touch protocols will reduce our 

future credit losses on the transferred loan portfolio. 

The efforts of our mortgage servicers are critical in keeping people in their homes and preventing foreclosures. We continue 

to work with our servicers to implement our foreclosure prevention initiatives effectively and to find ways to enhance our 

workout protocols and their workflow processes.

In 2015, we implemented a new strategy to reduce the number of our severely aged delinquent loans through sales of these 

nonperforming loans. We completed three nonperforming loan sales in 2015, selling more than 10,000 nonperforming loans 

with an aggregate unpaid principal balance of $2.1 billion. We plan to complete additional nonperforming loan sales.

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 36 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 36: Delinquency Status and Activity of Single-Family Conventional Loans

As of December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Delinquency status:

30 to 59 days delinquent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.46% 1.47% 1.64%

60 to 89 days delinquent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.41 0.43 0.49

Seriously delinquent (“SDQ”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.55 1.89 2.38

Percentage of SDQ loans that have been delinquent for more than 180 days . 67% 70% 73%

Percentage of SDQ loans that have been delinquent for more than two years. 30 34 36

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Single-family SDQ loans (number of loans):

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329,590 418,837 576,591

Additions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266,136 306,464 378,027

Removals:

Modifications and other loan workouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (91,241) (118,860) (157,336)

Liquidations and sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (117,884) (151,586) (226,976)

Cured or less than 90 days delinquent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (119,427) (125,265) (151,469)

Total removals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (328,552) (395,711) (535,781)

Ending balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267,174 329,590 418,837

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 

stronger credit profiles since the beginning of 2009. Loans we acquired since 2009 comprised 85% of our single-family 

guaranty book of business and had a serious delinquency rate of 0.37% as of December 31, 2015. 
125

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 48% of the loans added to our seriously delinquent 

loan population in 2015, and 56% of total seriously delinquent loans as of December 31, 2015. 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.

Table 37 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.
126

Table 37: Single-Family Conventional Seriously Delinquent Loan Concentration Analysis

As of December 31,

2015 2014 2013

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% 5% 0.58% 20% 5% 0.70% 20% 6% 0.98%

Florida . . . . . . . . 6 12 2.86 6 15 4.42 6 19 6.89

New Jersey. . . . . 4 10 4.87 4 10 5.78 4 8 6.25

New York. . . . . . 5 11 3.55 5 10 4.17 5 9 4.42

All other states. . 65 62 1.34 65 60 1.57 65 58 1.93

Product type:

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . 4 17 6.53 4 18 7.77 5 19 9.23

Vintages:

2004 and prior . . 5 26 3.06 7 28 3.26 9 27 3.50

2005 . . . . . . . . . . 2 12 5.67 3 12 6.18 4 13 7.26

2006 . . . . . . . . . . 3 15 8.49 3 16 9.61 3 18 11.26

2007 . . . . . . . . . . 3 22 9.73 4 23 10.79 5 25 12.18

2008 . . . . . . . . . . 2 8 5.84 2 8 6.27 3 8 6.69

2009 . . . . . . . . . . 5 3 1.03 6 3 1.00 7 3 0.98

2010 . . . . . . . . . . 7 3 0.62 9 3 0.59 10 2 0.56

2011 . . . . . . . . . . 8 2 0.44 10 2 0.42 11 2 0.34

2012 . . . . . . . . . . 21 4 0.31 24 3 0.27 26 2 0.17

2013 . . . . . . . . . . 18 4 0.34 21 2 0.22 22 * 0.04

2014 . . . . . . . . . . 11 1 0.24 11 * 0.04 — — —

2015 . . . . . . . . . . 15 * 0.03 — — — — — —

Estimated mark-tomarket LTV

ratio:

<= 60% . . . . . . . 46 27 0.78 42 23 0.88 38 19 0.97

60.01% to 70% . 19 14 1.28 19 12 1.36 19 11 1.47

70.01% to 80% . 17 15 1.59 18 14 1.75 19 13 1.90

80.01% to 90% . 10 14 2.67 10 14 3.04 11 14 3.53

90.01% to 100% 5 11 4.05 6 12 4.59 6 12 5.53

Greater than

100% . . . . . . . 3 19 10.76 5 25 10.98 7 31 12.22

Credit 

enhancement:(2)

Credit enhanced. 18 27 2.65 16 27 3.47 15 27 4.75

Non-credit

enhanced . . . . 82 73 1.34 84 73 1.62 85 73 2.00

__________

 * Represents less than 0.5% of single-family conventional business volume or book of business.

(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 collateral, letters of credit, mortgage insurance, 

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. 
127

See “Table 15: 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.

Loan Workout Metrics

We continue to work with our servicers to implement our home retention and foreclosure prevention initiatives. Loan 

modifications involve changes to the original mortgage terms such as product type, interest rate, amortization term, maturity 

date and/or unpaid principal balance. For many of our modifications, we will ultimately collect less than the contractual 

amount due under the original loan. Other resolutions and modifications may result in our receiving the full amount due, or 

certain installments due, under the loan over a period of time that is longer than the period of time originally provided for 

under the terms of the loan. Additionally, we currently offer up to twelve months of forbearance for those homeowners who 

are unemployed as an additional tool to help homeowners avoid foreclosure. 

Our primary loan modification initiatives include HAMP, a modification initiative under the Making Home Affordable 

Program, and our proprietary standard and streamlined modification initiatives. The number of HAMP-eligible borrowers has 

declined in recent years and completed HAMP modifications represented only 10% of our modifications completed in 2015. 

After a servicer determines that the borrower’s hardship is not temporary in nature, we require that servicers first evaluate 

borrowers for eligibility under a workout option before considering foreclosure. Not all borrowers facing foreclosure will be 

eligible for a modification. We work with servicers to ensure that borrowers who do not qualify for a modification or who fail 

to successfully complete the required trial period are provided with alternative home retention options or a foreclosure 

prevention alternative. 

Program guidance for the majority of our modifications, including HAMP, directs servicers either to cancel or to convert trial 

modifications to permanent modifications after three or four timely payments, depending on the borrower’s circumstances. 

During 2015, we completed approximately 94,000 modifications representing 67% of the trials initiated in the 12 month 

period ending September 30, 2015, compared with 123,000 completed modifications in 2014 representing 75% of the trials 

initiated in the 12 month period ending September 30, 2014. As of December 31, 2015, there were approximately 29,600

borrowers in the trial modification period. 

In addition, we continue to focus on foreclosure alternatives for borrowers who are unable to retain their homes. Foreclosure 

alternatives may be more appropriate if the borrower has experienced a significant adverse change in financial condition due 

to events such as unemployment or reduced income, divorce, or unexpected issues like medical bills and is therefore no 

longer able to make the required mortgage payments. To avoid foreclosure and satisfy the first-lien mortgage obligation, our 

servicers work with a borrower to accept a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, whereby the borrower voluntarily signs over the title 

to their property to the servicer, or to sell the home prior to foreclosure in a short sale, whereby the borrower sells the home 

for less than the full amount owed to Fannie Mae under the mortgage loan. These alternatives are designed to reduce our 

credit losses while helping borrowers avoid having to go through a foreclosure. We work to obtain the highest price possible 

for the properties sold in short sales and, in 2015, we received net sales proceeds from our short sale transactions equal to 

73% of the loans’ unpaid principal balance, compared with 72% in 2014. The existence of a second lien may limit our ability 

to provide borrowers with loan workout options, particularly those that are part of our foreclosure prevention efforts; 

however, we are not required to contact a second lien holder to obtain their approval prior to providing a borrower with a loan 

modification.

Table 38 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. 
128

Table 38: Statistics on Single-Family Loan Workouts

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Number of

Loans

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Number of

Loans

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Number of

Loans

(Dollars in millions)

Home retention solutions:

Modifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 15,723 94,212 $ 20,686 122,823 $ 28,801 160,007

Repayment plans and forbearances 

completed(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 835 5,996 986 7,309 1,594 12,022

Total home retention solutions. . . . . 16,558 100,208 21,672 130,132 30,395 172,029

Foreclosure alternatives:

Short sales . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,033 14,716 4,795 23,188 9,786 46,570

Deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure. . . . . . . 1,145 7,361 1,786 11,292 2,504 15,379

Total foreclosure alternatives. . . . . 4,178 22,077 6,581 34,480 12,290 61,949

Total loan workouts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 20,736 122,285 $ 28,253 164,612 $ 42,685 233,978

Loan workouts as a percentage of

single-family guaranty book of

business . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.73 % 0.71 % 0.99 % 0.94 % 1.48 % 1.33 %

__________

(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 2015 decreased compared with 2014, primarily due to a decline in the 

number of delinquent loans in 2015 compared with 2014.

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. 

The majority of our home retention strategies, including trial modifications and loans to certain borrowers who received 

bankruptcy relief, are classified as TDRs upon initiation.

Table 39 displays the unpaid principal balance of loans post-modification related to our single-family TDRs. For more 

information on the impact of TDRs, see “Note 3, Mortgage Loans.”

Table 39: Single-Family Troubled Debt Restructuring Activity

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 197,299 $ 200,507 $ 207,405

New TDRs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,978 19,050 26,320

Foreclosures(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7,173) (10,484) (13,192)

Payoffs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (16,239) (7,658) (16,054)

Other(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (4,210) (4,116) (3,972)

Ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 182,655 $ 197,299 $ 200,507

__________

(1) Consists of foreclosures, deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure, short sales and third-party sales.

(2) Primarily includes monthly principal payments.
129

Table 40 displays the percentage of our single-family loan modifications completed during 2014 and 2013 that were current 

or paid off one year after modification, as well as the percentage of our single-family loan modifications completed during 

2013 that were current or paid off two years after modification.

Table 40: Percentage of Single-Family Loan Modifications That Were Current or Paid Off at One and Two Years 

Post-Modification(1)

2014 2013

Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1 Q4 Q3 Q2 Q1

One Year Post-Modification

HAMP modifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79% 82% 83% 83% 83% 83% 84% 83%

Non-HAMP modifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 67 68 70 71 71 72 73

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 69 70 72 73 73 74 75

Two Years Post-Modification

HAMP modifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81% 81% 82% 81%

Non-HAMP modifications. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 70 70 70

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 72 72 73

__________

(1) Modifications do not reflect loans currently in trial modifications. 

We believe that the decline in the one-year performance of non-HAMP modifications in 2015 was primarily driven by a 

decrease in the amount of payment reduction borrowers received at modification. The amount of payment reduction 

borrowers received at modification declined because the LTV ratios of their mortgage loans improved and because a higher 

proportion of borrowers had previously received a modification.

Approximately 51% of our performing loan modifications 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 modifications with 

rate resets had their first interest rate resets in 2015. See “Table 35: Single-Family Adjustable-Rate Mortgage and Rate Reset 

Modifications by Year” in “Credit Portfolio Summary—Mortgage Rate Resets” for additional information on the timing of 

these initial interest rate resets. 

REO Management

Foreclosure and REO activity affect the amount of credit losses we realize in a given period. Table 41 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.
130

Table 41: Single-Family Foreclosed Properties

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Single-family foreclosed properties (number of properties):

Beginning of period inventory of single-family foreclosed properties (REO)(1)

. 87,063 103,229 105,666

Acquisitions by geographic area:(2)

Midwest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,024 26,013 39,113

Northeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,553 15,337 13,235

Southeast. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,618 48,647 57,090

Southwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,522 13,437 18,923

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,919 13,203 16,023

Total properties acquired through foreclosure(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78,636 116,637 144,384

Dispositions of REO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (108,446) (132,803) (146,821)

End of period inventory of single-family foreclosed properties (REO)(1)

. . . . . . . 57,253 87,063 103,229

Carrying value of single-family foreclosed properties (dollars in millions). . . . . . $ 6,608 $ 9,745 $ 10,334

Single-family foreclosure rate(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.45 % 0.67 % 0.82 %

__________

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

balance sheets as a component of “Other assets.”

(2) See footnote 10 to “Table 34: 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 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 has resulted in a reduction in the 

number of REO acquisitions in 2015 compared with 2014 and 2013.

Neighborhood stabilization is a core principle in our approach to managing our REO inventory. As a result, we seek to keep 

properties in good condition and, where appropriate, repair them to make them more marketable and increase the likelihood 

that an owner occupant will purchase. We repaired approximately 54,000 properties from our single-family REO inventory at 

an average cost of approximately $9,300 per property during 2015 and repaired approximately 67,000 properties at an 

average cost of approximately $7,900 per property during 2014 compared with repairs of approximately 66,000 properties at 

an average cost of approximately $6,700 per property during 2013. As the number of foreclosures on properties in judicial 

foreclosure states increased in 2015 compared to 2014, we experienced an increase in average property repair expenses, as a 

result of the longer foreclosure timelines in those states.

Repairing REO properties increases sales to owner occupants and increases financing options for REO buyers. In addition, 

we encourage homeownership through our First LookTM marketing period. During this First Look period, owner occupants, 

some nonprofit organizations and public entities may submit offers and purchase properties without competition from 

investors. Approximately 58% of the single-family properties we sold in 2015 were purchased by owner occupants, nonprofit 

organizations or public entities. 

In some cases, we engage in a third party sale at foreclosure, which allows us to avoid maintenance and other REO expenses 

we would have incurred had we acquired the property.

We currently lease properties to tenants who occupied the properties before we acquired them into our REO inventory and to 

eligible borrowers who executed a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, which can minimize disruption by providing additional time to 

find alternate housing, help stabilize local communities, provide us with rental income, and support our compliance with state 

and local laws protecting tenants in foreclosed properties. As of December 31, 2015, over 1,000 tenants leased our REO 

properties.

We continue to manage our REO inventory to appropriately manage 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 
131

and ensuring that the property is vacant. As of December 31, 2015 approximately 43% of our REO properties were unable to 

be marketed, 26% of our REO properties were available for sale, 17% of our REO properties were pending sale settlement 

and 14% of our REO properties were pending appraisals and being prepared to be listed for sale. 

Table 42 displays the proportionate share of foreclosures as compared with their share of our single-family guaranty book of 

business for the states that have a higher concentration of foreclosures. Table 42 also displays this information for California, 

as this state accounts for a large share of our single-family conventional guaranty book of business.

Table 42: Single-Family Acquired Property Concentration Analysis

As of For the Year Ended As of For the Year Ended As of For the Year Ended

December 31, 2015 December 31, 2014 December 31, 2013

Percentage of 

Book 

Outstanding(1)

Percentage of 

Properties Acquired 

by Foreclosure

(2)

Percentage of 

Book 

Outstanding(1)

Percentage of 

Properties Acquired 

by Foreclosure

(2)

Percentage of 

Book 

Outstanding(1)

Percentage of 

Properties Acquired 

by Foreclosure

(2)

States:

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . 6% 20% 6% 24% 6% 21%

Illinois . . . . . . . . . . . 4 7 4 7 4 9

New Jersey. . . . . . . . 4 6 4 3 4 1

California. . . . . . . . . 20 4 20 5 20 4

__________

(1) Calculated based on the aggregate unpaid principal balance of single-family conventional loans, where we have detailed loan-level 

information, for each category divided by the aggregate unpaid principal balance of our single-family conventional guaranty book of 

business.

(2) Calculated based on the number of properties acquired through foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure during the period for each 

category divided by the total number of properties acquired through foreclosure during the same period.

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, the current and anticipated cash flows from the property, as well as the financial strength of 

the lender. 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 either underwritten by a Fannie 

Mae-approved lender or 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 December 31, 2015, compared with 94% as of December 31, 2014 and 93% as of December 31, 2013. 

We use various types of credit enhancement arrangements for our multifamily loans, primarily lender risk-sharing. 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 credit losses on a pro rata basis with us. Non-DUS lenders typically share or absorb credit losses based on a negotiated 

percentage of the loan or the pool balance. 

Table 43 displays the percentage of the unpaid principal balance of loans in our multifamily guaranty book of business with 

lender risk-sharing and with no recourse to the lender.
132

Table 43: Multifamily Lender Risk-Sharing

As of December 31,

2015 2014

Lender risk-sharing:

DUS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90% 85%

Non-DUS negotiated . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 3

No recourse to the lender. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 12

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 December 31, 2015. These risk-sharing 

agreements not only transfer credit risk, but also better align our interest with that of the lender. 

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 44 displays original LTV ratio and DSCR metrics for our multifamily guaranty book of business. 

Table 44: Multifamily Guaranty Book of Business Key Risk Characteristics

As of December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Weighted average original LTV ratio. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66% 66% 66%

Original LTV ratio greater than 80% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 3 3

Original DSCR less than or equal to 1.10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 8 7

The percentage of our book of business with an original DSCR less than or equal to 1.10 has increased to 11% as of 

December 31, 2015, driven by an increase in new business volume funded with adjustable-rate mortgages and with fixed-rate 

mortgages with actual interest rates below the specified minimum interest rate at which we underwrite those loans.

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 life of the loan at the loan, property and portfolio levels. We track credit risk 

characteristics to determine the loan credit quality indicator, which are the internal risk categories and are further discussed in 

“Note 3, Mortgage Loans.” The credit risk characteristics we use to help determine the internal risk categories include the 

physical condition of the property, delinquency status, the relevant local market and economic conditions that may signal 

changing risk or return profiles, and other risk factors. For example, we closely monitor the rental payment trends and 

vacancy levels in local markets, as well as capitalization rates, to identify loans that merit closer attention or loss mitigation 

actions. We manage our exposure to refinancing risk for multifamily loans maturing in the next several years. We have a team 

that proactively manages upcoming loan maturities to minimize losses on maturing loans. This team assists lenders and 

borrowers with timely and appropriate refinancing of maturing loans with the goal of reducing defaults and foreclosures 

related to loans maturing in the near term. The primary asset management responsibilities for our multifamily loans are 

performed by our DUS and other multifamily lenders. We periodically evaluate these lenders’ and our other third party 

service providers’ performance for compliance with our asset management criteria. 

As part of our ongoing credit risk management process, we require lenders to provide quarterly and annual financial updates 

for the loans where we are contractually entitled to receive such information. 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 
133

guaranty book of business, calculated based on unpaid principal balance, with a current DSCR less than 1.0 was 

approximately 2% as of December 31, 2015 and 3% as of December 31, 2014. 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 December 31, 2015 and 

0.05% as of December 31, 2014. 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 decreased from 62 properties with a carrying value of $349 

million as of December 31, 2014 to 12 properties with a carrying value of $91 million as of December 31, 2015. The decrease 

is the result of REO dispositions outpacing the number of properties acquired through foreclosure, as a result of the stability 

of multifamily market fundamentals. 

Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk Management

We rely on our institutional counterparties to provide services and credit enhancements that are critical to our business. 

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. 

We have exposure primarily to the following types of institutional counterparties:

• mortgage sellers and/or servicers that service the loans we hold in our retained mortgage portfolio or that back our 

Fannie Mae MBS and that are obligated to repurchase loans from us or reimburse us for losses in certain 

circumstances;

• credit guarantors that provide credit enhancements on the mortgage assets that we hold in our retained mortgage 

portfolio or that back our Fannie Mae MBS, including mortgage insurers, financial guarantors, credit insurance risk 

transfer counterparties and multifamily lenders with risk sharing arrangements;

• custodial depository institutions that hold principal and interest payments for Fannie Mae portfolio loans and MBS 

certificateholders, as well as collateral posted by derivatives counterparties, mortgage sellers and mortgage servicers;

• the financial institutions that issue the investments held in our cash and other investments portfolio;

• derivatives counterparties;

• mortgage originators, investors and dealers;

• debt security dealers; and

• document custodians.

We routinely enter into a high volume of transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry, including brokers 

and dealers, mortgage lenders and commercial banks, and mortgage insurers, resulting in a significant credit concentration 

with respect to this industry. We also have significant concentrations of credit risk with particular counterparties. Many of our 

institutional counterparties provide several types of services for us. For example, many of our lender customers or their 

affiliates act as mortgage sellers, mortgage servicers, derivatives counterparties, custodial depository institutions or document 

custodians on our behalf.

In the event of a bankruptcy or receivership of one of our counterparties, we may be required to establish our ownership 

rights to the assets these counterparties hold on our behalf to the satisfaction of the bankruptcy court or receiver, which could 

result in a delay in accessing these assets causing a decline in their value. In addition, if we are unable to replace a defaulting 

counterparty that performs services that are critical to our business with another counterparty, it could adversely affect our 

ability to conduct our operations. See “Risk Factors” for further discussion of the risks to our business posed by our 

counterparties’ failure to fulfill their obligations to us. 
134

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.

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. We have minimum standards 

and financial requirements for mortgage servicers. In May 2015, we and Freddie Mac issued new operational and financial 

eligibility requirements for single-family mortgage seller-servicers pursuant to FHFA’s 2015 conservatorship scorecard 

objective relating to enhancing servicer eligibility standards. The operational requirements became effective September 1, 

2015 and the financial requirements became effective December 31, 2015. The updated eligibility requirements for servicers 

are designed to better address the risks associated with emerging servicer business models. 

We perform periodic on-site and financial reviews of our largest mortgage servicers and monitor their financial and portfolio 

performance as compared to peers and internal benchmarks. We work with our largest mortgage servicers to establish 

performance goals and monitor performance against the goals, and our servicing consultants work with mortgage servicers to 

improve servicing results and compliance with our Servicing Guide.

We likely would incur costs and potential increases in servicing fees and could also face operational risks if we replace a 

mortgage servicer. If a mortgage servicer defaults, it could result in a temporary disruption in servicing and loss mitigation 

activities relating to the loans serviced by that mortgage servicer, particularly if there is a loss of experienced servicing 

personnel. We may also face challenges in transferring a large servicing portfolio.

Our five largest single-family mortgage servicers, including their affiliates, serviced approximately 44% of our single-family 

guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015, compared with approximately 46% as of December 31, 2014. 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 December 31, 2015, compared with approximately 18% as of December 31, 

2014. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, one additional mortgage servicer, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., with its affiliates, 

serviced over 10% of our single-family guaranty book of business.

Our ten largest multifamily mortgage servicers, including their affiliates, serviced approximately 70% of our multifamily 

guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015, compared with approximately 67% as of December 31, 2014. Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A. and Walker & Dunlop, LLC, each serviced over 10% of our multifamily guaranty book of business as of 

December 31, 2015 and 2014. 

In recent years there has been a shift of a large portion of our servicing book from depository financial institution servicers to 

non-depository servicers. As of December 31, 2015, 19% of our total single-family guaranty book of business, including 60%

of our delinquent single-family loans, were serviced by our five largest non-depository servicers, compared with 18% of our 

total single-family guaranty book of business, including 49% of our delinquent single-family loans, as of December 31, 2014. 

Non-depository servicers pose additional risks to us because non-depository servicers may have a greater reliance on thirdparty 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 have been reviewing the activities of some of our largest non-depository servicers. See “Risk Factors” for a 

discussion of the risks of our reliance on servicers.

Some of our loans are serviced by subsidiaries and/or affiliates of Ocwen Financial Corporation (“Ocwen”). Ocwen has been 

the subject of regulatory scrutiny and actions, as well as rating agency downgrades. We continue to work with Ocwen on the 

orderly transfer of a substantial portion of their servicing of our loans. As of December 31, 2015, less than 0.5% of our total 

single-family guaranty book of business was serviced by Ocwen, compared with 3% as of December 31, 2014.

Because we delegate the servicing of our mortgage loans to mortgage servicers and do not have our own servicing function, 

mortgage servicers’ lack of appropriate process controls or the loss of business from a significant mortgage servicer 

counterparty could pose significant risks to our ability to conduct our business effectively. Many of our largest mortgage 

servicer counterparties continue to reevaluate the effectiveness of their process controls. Many mortgage servicers are also 

subject to federal and state regulatory actions and legal settlements that require the mortgage servicers to correct process 

deficiencies and improve their servicing practices. This has contributed to extended foreclosure timelines and, 

therefore, additional holding costs for us, such as property taxes, insurance, repairs and maintenance. 

Our five largest single-family mortgage sellers, including their affiliates, accounted for approximately 29% of our singlefamily business acquisition volume in 2015, compared with approximately 33% in 2014. Our largest mortgage seller is Wells 

Fargo Bank, N.A., which, together with its affiliates, accounted for approximately 13% of our single-family business 
135

acquisition volume in 2015, compared with approximately 12% in 2014. 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. 

Risk management steps we have taken or may take to mitigate our risk to mortgage sellers and servicers with whom we have 

significant counterparty exposure include guaranty of obligations by higher-rated entities, reduction or elimination of 

exposures, reduction or elimination of certain business activities, transfer of exposures to third parties, receipt of collateral 

and suspension or termination of the selling and servicing relationship.

We are exposed to the risk that a mortgage seller and servicer or another party involved in a mortgage loan transaction will 

engage in mortgage fraud by misrepresenting the facts about the loan. We have experienced significant financial losses in the 

past and may experience significant financial losses and reputational damage in the future as a result of mortgage fraud. See 

“Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks to our business as a result of mortgage fraud.

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. Failure by a significant 

mortgage seller or servicer, or a number of mortgage sellers or servicers, to fulfill repurchase obligations to us could result in 

an increase in our credit losses and credit-related expense, and have an adverse effect on our results of operations and 

financial condition. In addition, actions we take to pursue our contractual remedies could increase our costs, reduce our 

revenues, or otherwise have an adverse effect on our results of operations or 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 December 31, 2015.

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 45 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. 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. 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 direction of state regulators, referred to as their deferred payment obligation. 

As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, approximately 1% of our total risk in force mortgage insurance coverage and 

approximately 2% of our total insurance in force mortgage insurance coverage was pool insurance. 
136

Table 45: Mortgage Insurance Coverage

As of December 31, Deferred

2015 2014 2015 2014 Payment

Risk in Force(1) Insurance in Force(2) Obligation %(3)

(Dollars in millions)

Counterparty:(4)

Approved:

(5)

United Guaranty Residential Insurance Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 27,396 $ 25,018 $105,627 $ 96,906

Radian Guaranty, Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,191 24,284 98,274 95,845

Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23,850 22,184 92,026 86,069

Genworth Mortgage Insurance Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,700 15,477 65,735 61,408

Essent Guaranty, Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,787 6,637 35,673 27,679

Arch Mortgage Insurance Co. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,697 3,049 14,822 12,267

National Mortgage Insurance Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,989 468 11,997 6,286

Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233 185 1,409 1,092

Total approved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107,843 97,302 425,563 387,552

Not approved:

(5)

PMI Mortgage Insurance Co.(6)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,805 5,895 19,212 23,655 30%

Republic Mortgage Insurance Co.(6)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,921 4,796 15,450 19,393 —

Triad Guaranty Insurance Corp.(6)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,348 1,585 4,864 5,858 25%

Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 12 44 57

Total not approved. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,088 12,288 39,570 48,963

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 117,931 $ 109,590 $ 465,133 $ 436,515

Total as a percentage of single-family guaranty book of business . . 4 % 4 % 16 % 15 %

__________

(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 December 31, 2015.

(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.

We manage our exposure to mortgage insurers by maintaining eligibility requirements that an insurer must meet to become 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 stress analyses of the insurers’ portfolios and capital adequacy.

In April 2015 (with updates in June 2015 and December 2015), Fannie Mae published revised eligibility standards for 

approved private mortgage insurers, pursuant to a directive issued by FHFA to both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The new 

standards, effective immediately for new applicants and on December 31, 2015 for existing approved insurers, include 

enhanced financial requirements, including risk-based and minimum asset standards, and are designed to ensure that 

mortgage insurers have sufficient liquid assets to pay all claims under a hypothetical future stress scenario. The new 

standards also set forth enhanced operational performance expectations and define remedial actions that may be imposed 

should an approved mortgage insurer fail to comply with the revised requirements. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac established 

a framework and timelines for existing approved mortgage insurers to come into compliance with the new standards while 

they continue to insure new business eligible for delivery to us. 
137

Although the financial condition of our primary mortgage insurer counterparties currently approved to write new business 

continued to improve during 2015, there is still risk that these counterparties may fail to fulfill their obligations to pay our 

claims under insurance policies. In addition, as shown in “Table 45: Mortgage Insurance Coverage,” three of our top 

mortgage insurer counterparties—PMI, RMIC and Triad—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 and could also cause the quality and speed of their claims processing to 

deteriorate. 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, or if we have already made that determination but our estimate of the shortfall increases, it could result 

in an increase in our loss reserves, which could adversely affect our earnings, liquidity, financial condition and net worth. See 

“Risk Factors” 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.

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 $2.3 billion as of 

December 31, 2015 and $4.1 billion as of December 31, 2014.

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 $1.2 

billion recorded in “Other assets” in our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and $1.4 billion as of 

December 31, 2014 related to amounts claimed on insured, defaulted loans excluding government insured loans. Of this 

amount, $241 million as of December 31, 2015 and $269 million as of December 31, 2014 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 $770 million as of December 31, 2015 and $799 million as of December 31, 2014. The valuation allowance 

reduces our claim receivable to the amount which is considered probable of collection as of December 31, 2015 and 2014.

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 $3.2 billion as 

of December 31, 2015 and $4.6 billion as of December 31, 2014. See “Note 15, Concentrations of Credit Risk—Other 

Concentrations” 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 $16.7 billion as of December 31, 2015 and $19.2 billion as of December 31, 2014.

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 single-family 

mortgage loans to a panel of credit insurers or reinsurers. A portion of the credit insurers’ or reinsurers’ obligations are 

collateralized with highly-rated 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 $46.2 billion as of December 31, 2015, compared with $41.7 billion as of December 31, 

2014. As of December 31, 2015, 40% of our maximum potential loss recovery on multifamily loans was from four DUS 

lenders, compared with 39% as of December 31, 2014.

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 
138

large depositories to independent non-bank financial institutions. As of December 31, 2015, approximately 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, 

compared with approximately 36% as of December 31, 2014. 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

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 and a total of $33.2 billion in deposits for single-family payments were received and held by 269 institutions 

during the month of December 2014. Of these total deposits, 92% as of December 31, 2015, compared with 93% as of 

December 31, 2014, were held by institutions rated as investment grade by S&P, Moody’s and Fitch. Our transactions with 

custodial depository institutions are concentrated. Our six largest custodial depository institutions held 83% of these deposits 

as of December 31, 2015 and 2014.

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 December 2015, approximately $2.0 

billion, or 6%, of our total deposits for single-family payments received and held by these institutions was in excess of the 

deposit insurance protection limit compared with approximately $2.4 billion, or 7%, during the month of December 2014. 

These amounts can vary as they are calculated based on individual payments of mortgage borrowers and we must estimate 

which borrowers are paying their regular principal and interest payments and other types of payments, such as prepayments 

from refinancing or sales.

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 and the Federal Reserve Bank. See “Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity Management—Cash 

and Other Investments Portfolio” for more detailed information on our cash and other investments portfolio.

As of December 31, 2015, our cash and other investments portfolio totaled $71.5 billion and included $29.5 billion of U.S. 

Treasury securities. As of December 31, 2014, our cash and other investments portfolio totaled $72.4 billion and included 

$19.5 billion of U.S. Treasury securities. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, we held a total of $2.0 billion short-term 

unsecured deposits with two financial institutions that had a short-term 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. The remaining amounts in our cash and other investment portfolio other than U.S. Treasury securities 

were primarily composed of securities purchased under agreements to resell or similar arrangements. 

We monitor the credit risk position of our cash and other investments portfolio. If one of these counterparties fails to meet its 

obligations to us under the terms of the investments, it could result in financial losses to us and have a material adverse effect 

on our earnings, liquidity, financial condition and net worth.

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. 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 that became effective in June 2013, we are required to submit 

certain categories of new interest rate swaps to a derivatives clearing organization. We refer to our derivative transactions 
139

made pursuant to bilateral contracts as our 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 will increase 

substantially in the future as 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 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 $31 million as of 

December 31, 2015 and $27 million as of December 31, 2014. The majority of our total exposure as of each date consisted of 

mortgage insurance contracts accounted for as derivatives.

As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, 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 7% as of 

December 31, 2015 and 11% as of December 31, 2014.

See “Note 9, Derivative Instruments” and “Note 16, Netting Arrangements” for additional information on our derivative 

contracts as of December 31, 2015 and 2014.

Mortgage Originators, Investors and Dealers

We are routinely exposed to pre-settlement risk through the purchase or sale of closed mortgage loans and mortgage-related 

securities with mortgage originators, mortgage investors and mortgage dealers. The risk is the possibility that the 

counterparty will be unable or unwilling to either deliver mortgage assets or compensate us for the cost to cancel or replace 

the transaction. We manage this risk by determining position limits with these counterparties, based upon our assessment of 

their creditworthiness, and by monitoring and managing these exposures.

Debt Security Dealers

The credit risk associated with dealers that commit to place our debt securities is that they will fail to honor their contracts to 

take delivery of the debt, which could result in delayed issuance of the debt through another dealer. We manage these risks by 

establishing approval standards, monitoring our exposure positions and monitoring changes in the credit quality of dealers.

Document Custodians

We use third-party document custodians to provide loan document certification and custody services for some of the loans 

that we purchase and securitize. In many cases, our lender customers or their affiliates also serve as document custodians for 

us. Our ownership rights to the mortgage loans that we own or that back our Fannie Mae MBS could be challenged if a lender 

intentionally or negligently pledges or sells the loans that we purchased or fails to obtain a release of prior liens on the loans 

that we purchased, which could result in financial losses to us. When a lender or one of its affiliates acts as a document 

custodian for us, the risk that our ownership interest in the loans may be adversely affected is increased, particularly in the 

event the lender were to become insolvent. We mitigate these risks through legal and contractual arrangements with these 

custodians that identify our ownership interest, as well as by establishing qualifying standards for document custodians and 

requiring removal of the documents to our possession or to an independent third-party document custodian if we have 

concerns about the solvency or competency of the document custodian.
140

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.

Interest Rate Risk Management

Our goal is to manage market risk to be neutral to movements in interest rates and volatility, subject to model constraints and 

prevailing market conditions. We employ an integrated interest rate risk management strategy that allows for informed risk 

taking within pre-defined corporate risk limits. Decisions regarding our strategy in managing interest rate risk are based upon 

our corporate market risk policy and limits that are established by our Chief Risk Officer of Capital Markets and are subject 

to review and approval by our Board of Directors. Our Capital Markets Group has primary responsibility for executing our 

interest rate risk management strategy.

We have actively managed the interest rate risk of our “net portfolio,” which is defined below, through the following 

techniques: (1) asset selection and structuring (that is, by identifying or structuring mortgage assets with attractive 

prepayment and other risk characteristics); (2) issuing a broad range of both callable and non-callable debt instruments; and 

(3) using interest-rate derivatives. We have not actively managed or hedged our spread risk or basis risk, which would include 

the impact of changes in the spread between our mortgage assets and debt (referred to as mortgage-to-debt spreads) after we 

purchase mortgage assets, other than through asset monitoring and disposition. For mortgage assets in our portfolio that we 

intend to hold to maturity to realize the contractual cash flows, we accept period-to-period volatility in our financial 

performance attributable to changes in mortgage-to-debt spreads that occur after our purchase of mortgage assets. See “Risk 

Factors” for a discussion of the risks to our business posed by changes in interest rates or the loss of our ability to 

successfully manage interest risk.

We monitor current market conditions, including the interest rate environment, to assess the impact of these conditions on 

individual positions and our interest rate risk profile. In addition to qualitative factors, we use various quantitative risk 

metrics in determining the appropriate composition of our retained mortgage portfolio, our investments in non-mortgage 

securities and relative mix of debt and derivatives positions in order to remain within pre-defined risk tolerance levels that we 

consider acceptable. We regularly disclose two interest rate risk metrics that estimate our interest rate exposure: (1) fair value 

sensitivity to changes in interest rate levels and the slope of the yield curve and (2) duration gap.

The metrics used to measure our interest rate exposure are generated using internal models. Our internal models, consistent 

with standard practice for models used in our industry, require numerous assumptions. There are inherent limitations in any 

methodology used to estimate the exposure to changes in market interest rates. The reliability of our prepayment estimates 

and interest rate risk metrics depends on the availability and quality of historical data for each of the types of securities in our 

net portfolio. When market conditions change rapidly and dramatically, as they did during the financial market crisis of late 

2008, the assumptions of our models may no longer accurately capture or reflect the changing conditions. On a continuous 

basis, management makes judgments about the appropriateness of the risk assessments indicated by the models. See “Risk 

Factors” for a discussion of the risks associated with our reliance on models to manage risk.

Sources of Interest Rate Risk Exposure

The primary source of our interest rate risk is the composition of our net portfolio. Our net portfolio consists of our retained 

mortgage portfolio assets; cash and other investments portfolio; our outstanding debt of Fannie Mae that is used to fund the 

retained mortgage portfolio assets and cash and other investments portfolio; mortgage commitments and risk management 

derivatives. Risk management derivatives along with our debt instruments are used to manage interest rate risk.

Our performing mortgage assets consist mainly of single-family and multifamily mortgage loans. For single-family loans, 

borrowers have the option to prepay at any time before the scheduled maturity date or continue paying until the stated 

maturity. Given this prepayment option held by the borrower, we are exposed to uncertainty as to when or at what rate 

prepayments will occur, which affects the length of time our mortgage assets will remain outstanding and the timing of the 

cash flows related to these assets. This prepayment uncertainty results in a potential mismatch between the timing of receipt 

of cash flows related to our assets and the timing of payment of cash flows related to our liabilities.

Changes in interest rates, as well as other factors, influence mortgage prepayment rates and duration and also affect the value 

of our mortgage assets. When interest rates decrease, prepayment rates on fixed-rate mortgages generally accelerate because 

borrowers usually can pay off their existing mortgages and refinance at lower rates. Accelerated prepayment rates have the 

effect of shortening the duration and average life of the fixed-rate mortgage assets we hold in our net portfolio. In a declining 
141

interest rate environment, existing mortgage assets held in our net portfolio tend to increase in value or price because these 

mortgages are likely to have higher interest rates than new mortgages, which are being originated at the then-current lower 

interest rates. Conversely, when interest rates increase, prepayment rates generally slow, which extends the duration and 

average life of our mortgage assets and results in a decrease in value.

Although the fair value of our guaranty assets and our guaranty obligations is highly sensitive to changes in interest rates and 

the market’s perception of future credit performance, we do not actively manage the change in the fair value of our guaranty 

business that is attributable to changes in interest rates. We do not believe that periodic changes in fair value due to 

movements in interest rates are the best indication of the long-term value of our guaranty business because these changes do 

not take into account future guaranty business activity.

Interest Rate Risk Management Strategy

Our goal for managing the interest rate risk of our net portfolio is to be neutral to movements in interest rates and volatility. 

This involves asset selection and structuring of our liabilities to match and offset the interest rate characteristics of our 

retained mortgage portfolio and our investments in non-mortgage securities. Our strategy consists of the following principal 

elements:

• Debt Instruments. We issue a broad range of both callable and non-callable debt instruments to manage the duration 

and prepayment risk of expected cash flows of the mortgage assets we own.

• Derivative Instruments. We supplement our issuance of debt with derivative instruments to further reduce duration 

and prepayment risks.

• Monitoring and Active Portfolio Rebalancing. We continually monitor our risk positions and actively rebalance our 

portfolio of interest rate-sensitive financial instruments to maintain a close match between the duration of our assets 

and liabilities.

Debt Instruments

Historically, the primary tool we have used to fund the purchase of mortgage assets and manage the interest rate risk implicit 

in our mortgage assets is the variety of debt instruments we issue. The debt we issue is a mix that typically consists of shortand long-term, non-callable and callable debt. The varied maturities and flexibility of these debt combinations help us in 

reducing the mismatch of cash flows between assets and liabilities in order to manage the duration risk associated with an 

investment in long-term fixed-rate assets. Callable debt helps us manage the prepayment risk associated with fixed-rate 

mortgage assets because the duration of callable debt changes when interest rates change in a manner similar to changes in 

the duration of mortgage assets. See “Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity Management—Debt Funding” for 

additional information on our debt activity.

Derivative Instruments

Derivative instruments also are an integral part of our strategy in managing interest rate risk. Derivative instruments may be 

privately negotiated contracts, which are often referred to as over-the-counter derivatives, or they may be listed and traded on 

an exchange. When deciding whether to use derivatives, we consider a number of factors, such as cost, efficiency, the effect 

on our liquidity and results of operations, and our interest rate risk management strategy.

The derivatives we use for interest rate risk management purposes fall into these broad categories:

• Interest rate swap contracts. An interest rate swap is a transaction between two parties in which each agrees to 

exchange, or swap, interest payments. The interest payment amounts are tied to different interest rates or indices for 

a specified period of time and are generally based on a notional amount of principal. The types of interest rate swaps 

we use include pay-fixed swaps, receive-fixed swaps and basis swaps.

• Interest rate option contracts. These contracts primarily include pay-fixed swaptions, receive-fixed swaptions, 

cancelable swaps and interest rate caps. A swaption is an option contract that allows us or a counterparty to enter 

into a pay-fixed or receive-fixed swap at some point in the future.

• Foreign currency swaps. These swaps convert debt that we issue in foreign denominated currencies into U.S. 

dollars. We enter into foreign currency swaps only to the extent that we hold foreign currency debt.

• Futures. These are standardized exchange-traded contracts that either obligate a buyer to buy an asset at a 

predetermined date and price or a seller to sell an asset at a predetermined date and price. The types of futures 

contracts we enter into include Eurodollar, U.S. Treasury and swaps.
142

We use interest rate swaps, interest rate options and futures, in combination with our issuance of debt securities, to better 

match the duration of our assets with the duration of our liabilities. We are generally an end user of derivatives; our principal 

purpose in using derivatives is to manage our aggregate interest rate risk profile within prescribed risk parameters. We 

generally only use derivatives that are relatively liquid and straightforward to value. We use derivatives for four primary 

purposes:

(1) As a substitute for notes and bonds that we issue in the debt markets;

(2) To achieve risk management objectives not obtainable with debt market securities;

(3) To quickly and efficiently rebalance our portfolio; and

(4) To hedge foreign currency exposure.

Decisions regarding the repositioning of our derivatives portfolio are based upon current assessments of our interest rate risk 

profile and economic conditions, including the composition of our retained mortgage portfolio, our investments in nonmortgage securities and relative mix of our debt and derivative positions, the interest rate environment and expected trends.

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. 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 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 
143

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 46 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. In addition, the table 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 December 31, 

2015 and 2014. 

The sensitivity measures displayed in Table 46, 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 plus or minus 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 pretax 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.
144

Table 46: Interest Rate Sensitivity of Net Portfolio to Changes in Interest Rate Level and Slope of Yield Curve(1)

As of December 31,(2)

2015 2014

(Dollars in billions)

Rate level shock:

-100 basis points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.4 $ 0.4

-50 basis points. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 0.1

+50 basis points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.1) (0.1)

+100 basis points . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.4) (0.1)

Rate slope shock:

-25 basis points (flattening) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 0.0

+25 basis points (steepening) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.0) (0.0)

For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2015(3)

Duration

Gap

Rate Slope Shock

25 bps

Rate Level Shock

50 bps

Exposure

(In months) (Dollars in billions)

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.0 $ 0.0 $ 0.1

Minimum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1.2) 0.0 0.0

Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 0.1 0.2

Standard deviation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.0 0.1

For the Three Months Ended December 31, 2014(3)

Duration

Gap

Rate Slope Shock

25 bps

Rate Level Shock

50 bps

Exposure

(In months) (Dollars in billions)

Average . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.1 $ 0.1 $ 0.0

Minimum. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.3) 0.0 0.0

Maximum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5 0.1 0.1

Standard deviation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.2 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. The average duration gap was zero months for the last three months of 2015, which is 

consistent with the average duration gap for the last three months of 2014. Because the effective duration gap of our net 

portfolio was close to zero months in the periods presented, convexity risk was the primary driver of the market value 

sensitivity of our net portfolio in those periods.

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 47 displays an example of how derivatives impacted the net market value exposure 

for a 50 basis point parallel interest rate shock.
145

Table 47: Derivative Impact on Interest Rate Risk (50 Basis Points)(1)

As of December 31,

2015 2014

(Dollars in billions)

Before derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (1.5) $ (1.9)

After derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.1) (0.1)

Effect of derivatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.4 1.8

__________

(1) Measured on the last day of each period presented.

Liquidity Risk Management

See “Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity Management” for a discussion of how we manage liquidity risk.

Operational Risk Management

Operational risk is the risk of loss or harm resulting from inadequate or failed internal processes, people or systems, or from 

external events. Our corporate operational risk framework is based on FHFA’s Advisory Bulletin AB 2014-02 on Operational 

Risk Management. Our operational risk framework is intended to provide a methodology to identify, assess, mitigate, control 

and monitor operational risks by embedding the concepts of operational risk in the day-to-day activities of individuals across 

the company. Included in this framework is a requirement for a system to track and report operational risk incidents. The 

framework also includes a methodology for business owners to conduct risk and control self-assessments to self-identify 

potential operational risks and points of execution failure, the effectiveness of associated controls, and document corrective 

action plans to close identified deficiencies. We continue to enhance our risk-conscious culture, in which all employees are 

expected to identify, discuss, manage and remediate potential and actual operational risks. The success of our operational risk 

efforts will depend on the consistent execution of the operational risk programs and the timely remediation of high 

operational risk issues. To quantify our operational risk exposure, we rely on the Basel Standardized approach, which is based 

on a percentage of gross income.

While each business unit is responsible for managing its operational risk, our Operational Risk Management group provides 

the business units and process owners with the tools, techniques, expertise and guiding principles to assist them in prudent 

management of their operational risk exposure. Operational risk lead teams, comprised of centralized resources within our 

Enterprise Risk Management division, are aligned with each of our primary business units as well as with our corporate 

functions such as finance and legal. Each risk lead reports to the Vice President and Chief Risk Officer of Operational Risk, 

who reports directly to the Senior Vice President and Chief Risk Officer. The management-level Operational Risk Committee 

provides an additional governance forum for overseeing risk management activities related to operational risk.

See “Risk Factors” for more information regarding our operational risk and “Risk Management” for more information 

regarding our governance of operational risk management.

Cyber Risk Management

Our operations rely on the secure receipt, processing, storage and transmission of confidential and other information in our 

computer systems and networks and with our business partners, including confidential or personal information that is subject 

to privacy laws, regulations or customer-imposed controls. Information security risks for large institutions like us have 

significantly increased in recent years and from time to time we have been, and likely will continue to be, the target of 

attempted cyber attacks and other information security breaches. We take measures to protect the security of our computer 

systems, software and networks. These risks are an unavoidable result of being in business, and managing these risks is part 

of our business activities. To date, we have not experienced any material losses relating to cyber attacks. See “Risk Factors” 

for additional discussion of cybersecurity risks to our business.

We have made a number of enhancements to our cyber risk management in recent years including:

• establishing a cyber risk management framework that aligns to the enterprise risk management framework, the 

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Framework for Improving Critical Infrastructure 

Cybersecurity, and FHFA’s Advisory Bulletin AB 2014-05 on Cyber Risk Management;

• developing a cyber risk appetite that articulates broadly the cyber risks that the company is willing to accept;

• providing a robust suite of reporting to provide a comprehensive view of the health and progress of our 

cybersecurity program;
146

• redesigning our cybersecurity program and organization to strengthen our focus and technical capabilities;

• expanding relationships to proactively defend the company by engaging with private, government and commercial 

entities; 

• obtaining insurance coverage relating to cybersecurity risks; and

• performing a quarterly cross-functional cyber attack response exercise to strengthen our response capabilities.

Management of Business Resiliency

Our business resiliency program is designed to provide reasonable assurance for continuity of critical business operations in 

the event of disruptions caused by the loss of facilities, technology or personnel. We recently built an out-of-region data 

center for disaster recovery in order to increase the geographic diversity of our business continuity plans. This data center 

became operational in the fourth quarter of 2014. Despite the planning, testing and preparation of back up venues that we 

engage in, a catastrophic event may still result in a significant business disruption and financial losses. See “Risk Factors” for 

a discussion of the risks to our business relating to a catastrophic event that could disrupt our business.

Non-Mortgage-Related Fraud Risk

Our anti-fraud program provides a framework for managing non-mortgage-related fraud risk. The program is designed to 

provide reasonable assurance for the prevention and detection of non-mortgage-related fraudulent activity. However, because 

fraudulent activity requires the intentional circumvention of the internal control structure, the efforts of the program may not 

always prevent, or immediately detect, instances of such activity.

IMPACT OF FUTURE ADOPTION OF NEW ACCOUNTING GUIDANCE

We identify and discuss the expected impact on our consolidated financial statements of recently issued accounting guidance 

in “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.”

GLOSSARY OF TERMS USED IN THIS REPORT

Terms used in this report have the following meanings, unless the context indicates otherwise. 

An “Acquired credit-impaired loan” refers to a loan we have acquired for which there is evidence of credit deterioration 

since origination and for which it is probable we will not be able to collect all of the contractually due cash flows. We record 

our net investment in such loans at the lower of the acquisition cost of the loan or the estimated fair value of the loan at the 

date of acquisition. Typically, loans we acquire from our unconsolidated MBS trusts pursuant to our option to purchase upon 

default meet these criteria. Because we acquire these loans from our MBS trusts at par value plus accrued interest, to the 

extent the par value of a loan exceeds the estimated fair value at the time we acquire the loan, we record the related fair value 

loss as a charge against the “Reserve for guaranty losses.”

“Advisory Bulletin” refers to 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.”

“Alt-A mortgage loan” or “Alt-A loan” generally refers to a mortgage loan originated under a lender’s program offering 

reduced or alternative documentation than that required for a full documentation mortgage loan but may also include other 

alternative product features. As a result, Alt-A mortgage loans have a higher risk of default than non-Alt-A mortgage loans. 

We classify certain loans as Alt-A so that we can discuss our exposure to Alt-A loans in this Form 10-K and elsewhere. 

However, there is no universally accepted definition of Alt-A loans. In reporting our Alt-A exposure, we have classified 

mortgage loans as Alt-A if and only if the lenders that delivered the mortgage loans to us classified the loans as Alt-A, based 

on documentation or other product features. We have loans with some features that are similar to Alt-A mortgage 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 “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Mortgage Credit Risk Management—Single-Family 

Mortgage Credit Risk Management,” “Note 3, Mortgage Loans” and “Note 6, Financial Guarantees.” We have classified 

private-label mortgage-related securities held in our retained mortgage portfolio as Alt-A if the securities were labeled as such 

when issued. For more information on the Alt-A loans and securities in our mortgage credit book of business, see “Note 15, 

Concentrations of Credit Risk.” 
147

“Business volume” refers to the sum in any given period of the unpaid principal balance of: (1) the mortgage loans and 

mortgage-related securities we purchase for our retained mortgage portfolio; (2) the mortgage loans we securitize into Fannie 

Mae MBS that are acquired by third parties; and (3) credit enhancements that we provide on our mortgage assets. It excludes 

mortgage loans we securitize from our portfolio and the purchase of Fannie Mae MBS for our retained mortgage portfolio. 

“Buy-ups” refer to upfront payments we make to lenders to adjust the monthly contractual guaranty fee rate on a Fannie Mae 

MBS so that the pass-through coupon rate on the MBS is in a more easily tradable increment of a whole or half percent. 

“Buy-downs” refer to upfront payments we receive from lenders to adjust the monthly contractual guaranty fee rate on a 

Fannie Mae MBS so that the pass-through coupon rate on the MBS is in a more easily tradable increment of a whole or half 

percent. 

“Charge-off” refers to loan amounts written off as uncollectible bad debts. These loan amounts are removed from our 

consolidated balance sheet and charged against our loss reserves when the balance is deemed uncollectible, which is 

generally at foreclosure or other liquidation events (such as deed-in-lieu of foreclosure or a short-sale). Also includes chargeoffs related to the Advisory Bulletin.

“Combined loss reserves” consists of our allowance for loan losses and reserve for guaranty losses. Our combined loss 

reserves reflects our estimate of the probable losses we have incurred in our guaranty book of business, including concessions 

we granted borrowers upon modification of their loans.

“Connecticut Avenue Securities” refers to a type of debt structure that allows Fannie Mae to transfer a portion of the credit 

risk from loan reference pools, consisting of certain single-family mortgage loans in our single-family guaranty book of 

business, to third-party investors.

“Conventional mortgage” refers to a mortgage loan that is not guaranteed or insured by the U.S. government or its agencies, 

such as the VA, the FHA or the Rural Development Housing and Community Facilities Program of the Department of 

Agriculture. 

“Credit enhancement” refers to an agreement used to reduce credit risk by requiring collateral, letters of credit, mortgage 

insurance, 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. 

“Duration” refers to the sensitivity of the value of a financial instrument to changes in interest rates. The duration of a 

financial instrument is the expected percentage change in its value in the event of a change in interest rates of 100 basis 

points. 

“Guaranty book of business” refers to the sum of the unpaid principal balance of: (1) mortgage loans of Fannie Mae; 

(2) mortgage loans underlying Fannie Mae MBS; and (3) other credit enhancements that we provide on mortgage assets. It 

excludes non-Fannie Mae mortgage-related securities held in our retained mortgage portfolio for which we do not provide a 

guaranty. 

“Implied volatility” refers to the market’s expectation of the magnitude of future changes in interest rates. 

“Interest rate swap” refers to a transaction between two parties in which each agrees to exchange payments tied to different 

interest rates or indices for a specified period of time, generally based on a notional principal amount. An interest rate swap is 

a type of derivative. 

“HARP loans” refer to loans we have acquired through the Obama Administration’s Home Affordable Refinance Program 

(“HARP”), which allows eligible Fannie Mae borrowers with high LTV ratio loans to refinance into more sustainable loans.

“LIHTC partnerships” refer to low-income housing tax credit limited partnerships or limited liability companies. 

“Loans,” “mortgage loans” and “mortgages” refer to both whole loans and loan participations, secured by residential real 

estate, cooperative shares or by manufactured housing units. 

“Mortgage assets,” when referring to our assets, refers to both mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities we hold in our 

retained mortgage portfolio. For purposes of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, the definition of mortgage assets 

is based on the unpaid principal balance of such assets and does not reflect market valuation adjustments, allowance for loan 

losses, impairments, unamortized premiums and discounts and the impact of our consolidation of variable interest entities. 

We disclose the amount of our mortgage assets for purposes of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement on a monthly 

basis under the caption “Gross Mortgage Portfolio” in our Monthly Summaries, which are available on our website and 

announced in a press release.

“Mortgage-backed securities” or “MBS” refers generally to securities that represent beneficial interests in pools of mortgage 

loans or other mortgage-related securities. These securities may be issued by Fannie Mae or by others.
148

“Mortgage credit book of business” refers to the sum of the unpaid principal balance of: (1) mortgage loans of Fannie Mae; 

(2) mortgage loans underlying Fannie Mae MBS; (3) non-Fannie Mae mortgage-related securities held in our retained 

mortgage portfolio; and (4) other credit enhancements that we provide on mortgage assets. 

“Multifamily mortgage loan” refers to a mortgage loan secured by a property containing five or more residential dwelling 

units. 

“New business purchases” refers to 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.

“Notional amount” refers to the hypothetical dollar amount in an interest rate swap transaction on which exchanged 

payments are based. The notional amount in an interest rate swap transaction generally is not paid or received by either party 

to the transaction, or generally perceived as being at risk. The notional amount is typically significantly greater than the 

potential market or credit loss that could result from such transaction. 

“Option-adjusted spread” refers to the incremental expected return between a security, loan or derivative contract and a 

benchmark yield curve (typically, U.S. Treasury securities, LIBOR and swaps or agency debt securities). The option-adjusted 

spread provides explicit consideration of the variability in the security’s cash flows across multiple interest rate scenarios 

resulting from any options embedded in the security, such as prepayment options. For example, the option-adjusted spread of 

a mortgage that can be prepaid by the homeowner without penalty is typically lower than a nominal yield spread to the same 

benchmark because the option-adjusted spread reflects the exercise of the prepayment option by the homeowner, which 

lowers the expected return of the mortgage investor. In other words, option-adjusted spread for mortgage loans is a riskadjusted spread after consideration of the prepayment risk in mortgage loans. The market convention for mortgages is 

typically to quote their option-adjusted spread to swaps. The option-adjusted spread of our debt and derivative instruments 

are also frequently quoted to swaps. The option-adjusted spread of our net mortgage assets is therefore the combination of 

these two spreads to swaps and is the option-adjusted spread between our assets and our funding and hedging instruments. 

“Outstanding Fannie Mae MBS” refers to the total unpaid principal balance of Fannie Mae MBS that is held by third-party 

investors and held in our retained mortgage portfolio. 

“Pay-fixed swap” refers to an interest rate swap trade under which we pay a predetermined fixed rate of interest based upon a 

set notional amount and receive a variable interest payment based upon a stated index, with the index resetting at regular 

intervals over a specified period of time. These contracts generally increase in value as interest rates rise and decrease in 

value as interest rates fall. 

“Private-label securities” or “PLS” refers to mortgage-related securities issued by entities other than agency issuers Fannie 

Mae, Freddie Mac or Ginnie Mae. 

“Receive-fixed swap” refers to an interest rate swap trade under which we make a variable interest payment based upon a 

stated index, with the index resetting at regular intervals, and receive a predetermined fixed rate of interest based upon a set 

notional amount and over a specified period of time. These contracts generally increase in value as interest rates fall and 

decrease in value as interest rates rise. 

“Recorded investment of held-for-investment loans” refers to loans at the unpaid principal balance, net of unamortized 

premiums and discounts, other cost basis adjustments, and accrued interest receivable.

“Refi Plus loans” refers to loans we acquire under our Refi Plus initiative, which offers additional 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. Refi Plus has no limits on maximum LTV ratio and provides mortgage insurance flexibilities for loans with LTV

ratios greater than 80%.

“REMIC” or “Real Estate Mortgage Investment Conduit” refers to a type of mortgage-related security in which interest and 

principal payments from mortgages or mortgage-related securities are structured into separately traded securities. 

“REO” refers to real-estate owned by Fannie Mae because we have foreclosed on the property or obtained the property 

through a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure. 

“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).

“Single-class Fannie Mae MBS” refers to Fannie Mae MBS where the investors receive principal and interest payments in 

proportion to their percentage ownership of the MBS issue. 
149

“Single-family mortgage loan” refers to a mortgage loan secured by a property containing four or fewer residential dwelling 

units. 

“Structured Fannie Mae MBS” refers to Fannie Mae MBS that are resecuritizations of other Fannie Mae MBS. 

“Subprime mortgage loan” generally refers to a mortgage loan made to a borrower with a weaker credit profile than that of a 

prime borrower. As a result of the weaker credit profile, subprime borrowers have a higher likelihood of default than prime 

borrowers. Subprime mortgage loans were typically originated by lenders specializing in this type of business or by subprime 

divisions of large lenders, using processes unique to subprime loans. We classify certain loans as subprime so that we can 

discuss our exposure to subprime loans in this Form 10-K and elsewhere. However, there is no universally accepted 

definition of subprime loans. In reporting our subprime exposure, we have classified mortgage loans as subprime if and only 

if the loans were originated by a lender specializing in subprime business or by a subprime division of a large lender; 

however, we exclude loans originated by these lenders from the subprime classification if we acquired the loans in 

accordance with our standard underwriting criteria, which typically require compliance by the seller with our Selling Guide 

(including standard representations and warranties) and/or evaluation of the loans through our Desktop Underwriter system. 

We have loans with some features that are similar to subprime mortgage loans that we have not classified as subprime 

because they do not meet our classification criteria. We do not rely solely on our classifications of loans as subprime to 

evaluate the credit risk exposure relating to these loans in our single-family conventional guaranty book of business. We are 

not currently acquiring newly originated subprime loans, although we are acquiring refinancings of existing Fannie Mae 

subprime loans in connection with our Refi Plus initiative. Unlike the loans they replace, these refinancings are not included 

in our reported subprime loans because they do not meet our classification criteria for subprime loans. We have classified 

private-label mortgage-related securities held in our retained mortgage portfolio as subprime if the securities were labeled as 

such when issued. For more information on the subprime securities in our mortgage credit book of business, see “Note 5, 

Investments in Securities.”

“Swaption” refers to an option that gives the option buyer the right, but not the obligation, to enter into an interest rate swap 

on a future date with the option seller on terms specified on the date the parties agreed to the swaption. 

“TCCA fees” refers to the expense recognized as a result of the 10 basis point increase in guaranty fees on all single-family 

residential mortgages delivered to us on or after April 1, 2012 and before January 1, 2022 pursuant to the Temporary Payroll 

Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011, which we remit to Treasury on a quarterly basis.

“Total loss reserves” consists of our allowance for loan losses, our allowance for preforeclosure property taxes and insurance 

receivable and our reserve for guaranty losses. Our total loss reserves reflect our estimate of the probable losses we have 

incurred in our guaranty book of business, including concessions we granted borrowers upon modification of their loans.

Item 7A. 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 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 

Our consolidated financial statements and notes thereto are included elsewhere in this annual report on Form 10-K as 

described below in “Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules.” 

Item 9. Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure 

None. 

Item 9A. 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.
150

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 

December 31, 2015, 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 December 31, 2015 or as of the date of filing this report.

Our disclosure controls and procedures were not effective as of December 31, 2015 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 December 31, 2015 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 “Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting—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.

MANAGEMENT’S REPORT ON INTERNAL CONTROL OVER FINANCIAL REPORTING

Overview 

Our management is responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal control over financial reporting. Internal 

control over financial reporting, as defined in rules promulgated under the Exchange Act, is a process designed by, or under 

the supervision of, our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer and effected by our Board of Directors, 

management and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the 

preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with GAAP. Internal control over financial reporting 

includes those policies and procedures that: 

• pertain to the maintenance of records that in reasonable detail accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and 

dispositions of our assets; 

• provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial 

statements in accordance with GAAP, and that our receipts and expenditures are being made only in accordance with 

authorizations of our management and our Board of Directors; and 

• provide reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use or 

disposition of our assets that could have a material effect on our financial statements. 

Internal control over financial reporting cannot provide absolute assurance of achieving financial reporting objectives 

because of its inherent limitations. Internal control over financial reporting is a process that involves human diligence and 

compliance and is subject to lapses in judgment and breakdowns resulting from human failures. Internal control over 

financial reporting also can be circumvented by collusion or improper override. Because of such limitations, there is a risk 

that material misstatements may not be prevented or detected on a timely basis by internal control over financial reporting. 
151

However, these inherent limitations are known features of the financial reporting process, and it is possible to design into the 

process safeguards to reduce, though not eliminate, this risk. 

Our management assessed the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015. In 

making its assessment, management used the criteria established in the Internal Control-Integrated Framework issued by the 

Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (“COSO”) in May 2013. Management’s assessment of 

our internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015 identified a material weakness, which is described 

below. Because of this material weakness, management has concluded that our internal control over financial reporting was 

not effective as of December 31, 2015 or as of the date of filing this report. 

Our independent registered public accounting firm, Deloitte & Touche LLP, has issued an audit report on our internal control 

over financial reporting, expressing an adverse opinion on the effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting as 

of December 31, 2015. This report is included below under the heading “Report of Independent Registered Public 

Accounting Firm.” 

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 December 31, 2015 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 

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 

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 December 31, 2015 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 “Management’s Report on Internal Control Over Financial Reporting—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.
152

• 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 annual 

report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2015 (“2015 Form 10-K”), and engaged in discussions 

regarding issues associated with the information contained in those filings. Prior to filing our 2015 Form 10-K, 

FHFA provided Fannie Mae management with a written acknowledgment that it had reviewed the 2015 Form 10-K, 

and it was not aware of any material misstatements or omissions in the 2015 Form 10-K and had no objection to our 

filing the 2015 Form 10-K.

• 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.

In view of these activities, we believe that our consolidated financial statements for the year ended December 31, 2015 have 

been prepared in conformity with GAAP.

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 September 30, 2015 that management believes have materially affected, or are 

reasonably likely to materially affect, our internal control over financial reporting.
153

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To Fannie Mae:

We have audited the internal control over financial reporting of Fannie Mae and consolidated entities (in conservatorship) 

(the “Company”) as of December 31, 2015, based on criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013)

issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission. The Company’s management is 

responsible for maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting and for its assessment of the effectiveness of 

internal control over financial reporting, included in the accompanying Management’s Report on Internal Control over 

Financial Reporting. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the Company’s internal control over financial reporting 

based on our audit. 

We conducted our audit in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United 

States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial 

statements are free of material misstatement. Our audit included obtaining an understanding of internal control over financial 

reporting, assessing the risk that a material weakness exists, testing and evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of 

internal control based on that risk, and performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. 

We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinion.

A company’s internal control over financial reporting is a process designed by, or under the supervision of, the company’s 

principal executive and principal financial officers, or persons performing similar functions, and effected by the company’s 

board of directors, management, and other personnel to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial 

reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting 

principles. A company’s internal control over financial reporting includes those policies and procedures that (1) pertain to the 

maintenance of records that, in reasonable detail, accurately and fairly reflect the transactions and dispositions of the assets of 

the company; (2) provide reasonable assurance that transactions are recorded as necessary to permit preparation of financial 

statements in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, and that receipts and expenditures of the company 

are being made only in accordance with authorizations of management and directors of the company; and (3) provide 

reasonable assurance regarding prevention or timely detection of unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition of the 

company’s assets that could have a material effect on the financial statements.

Because of the inherent limitations of internal control over financial reporting, including the possibility of collusion or 

improper management override of controls, material misstatements due to error or fraud may not be prevented or detected on 

a timely basis. Also, projections of any evaluation of the effectiveness of the internal control over financial reporting to future 

periods are subject to the risk that the controls may become inadequate because of changes in conditions, or that the degree of 

compliance with the policies or procedures may deteriorate.

A material weakness is 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. The following material weakness has been identified and included in 

management’s assessment:

• Disclosure Controls and Procedures - The Company’s disclosure controls and procedures did not adequately ensure 

the accumulation and communication to management of information known to the Federal Housing Finance Agency 

that is needed to meet their disclosure obligations under the federal securities laws as they relate to financial 

reporting.

This material weakness was considered in determining the nature, timing, and extent of audit tests applied in our audit of the 

consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, of the Company and this report does not 

affect our report on such financial statements.

In our opinion, because of the effect of the material weakness identified above on the achievement of the objectives of the 

control criteria, the Company has not maintained effective internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, 

based on the criteria established in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring 

Organizations of the Treadway Commission.

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), 

the consolidated financial statements as of and for the year ended December 31, 2015, of the Company and our report dated 

February 19, 2016, expressed an unqualified opinion on those financial statements and included an explanatory paragraph 

regarding the Company’s dependence upon the continued support from various agencies of the United States Government, 
154

including the United States Department of Treasury and the Company’s conservator and regulator, the Federal Housing 

Finance Agency.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

McLean, Virginia

February 19, 2016
155

Item 9B. Other Information

None.

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

DIRECTORS

Our current directors are listed below. They have provided the following information about their principal occupation, 

business experience and other matters. Upon FHFA’s appointment as our conservator on September 6, 2008, FHFA succeeded 

to all rights, titles, powers and privileges of any director of Fannie Mae with respect to Fannie Mae and its assets. 

As discussed in more detail below under “Corporate Governance—Conservatorship and Delegation of Authority to Board of 

Directors,” FHFA, as conservator, appointed an initial group of directors to our Board following our entry into 

conservatorship, delegated to the Board certain authority, including the authority to appoint directors to subsequent vacancies 

subject to conservator review, and defined the term of service of directors during conservatorship. The Nominating & 

Corporate Governance Committee evaluates the qualifications of individual directors on an annual basis. In its assessment of 

current directors and evaluation of potential candidates for director, the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee 

considers, among other things, whether the Board as a whole possesses meaningful experience, qualifications and skills in the 

following subject areas: business; finance; capital markets; accounting; risk management; public policy; mortgage lending, 

real estate, low-income housing and/or homebuilding; technology; and the regulation of financial institutions. See “Corporate 

Governance—Composition of Board of Directors” below for further information on the factors the Nominating & Corporate 

Governance Committee considers in evaluating and selecting board members. 

Amy E. Alving, 53, served as Chief Technology Officer and Senior Vice President at Science Applications International 

Corporation (“SAIC”), an engineering and technology applications company, from December 2007 to September 2013. Dr. 

Alving’s prior positions include director of the Special Projects Office at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, 

White House Fellow, and tenured faculty member at the University of Minnesota. Until 2015, Dr. Alving was a member of 

the Board of Directors of Pall Corporation, where she served as a member of the Audit Committee and the Nominating/

Governance Committee. In addition, she is a member of the Defense Science Board. Dr. Alving has been a Fannie Mae 

director since October 2013. Dr. Alving serves as a member of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, the Risk 

Policy & Capital Committee and the Strategic Initiatives Committee.

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee concluded that Dr. Alving should continue to serve as a director due to 

her extensive experience in business, risk management, public policy matters and technology, which she gained in the 

positions described above.

William Thomas Forrester, 67, served as Chief Financial Officer of The Progressive Corporation from 1999 until his 

retirement in March 2007, and he served in a variety of senior financial and operating positions with Progressive prior to that 

time. Prior to joining The Progressive Corporation in 1984, Mr. Forrester was with Price Waterhouse LLP, a major public 

accounting firm, from 1976 to 1984. Mr. Forrester was previously a member of the Board of Directors of Alterra Capital 

Holdings Limited, from May 2010 to May 2013, where he served on the Audit and Risk Management Committee and the 

Underwriting Committee. He previously was also a member of the Board of Directors of The Navigators Group, Inc. from 

December 2006 to May 2012, where he served as Chair of the Audit Committee and also as a member of the Finance and 

Compensation Committees. Mr. Forrester has been a Fannie Mae director since December 2008. Mr. Forrester serves as 

Chair of the Audit Committee and is also a member of the Risk Policy & Capital Committee, the Strategic Initiatives 

Committee and the Executive Committee. 

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee concluded that Mr. Forrester should continue to serve as a director due 

to his extensive experience in business, finance, accounting and risk management, which he gained in the positions described 

above. 

Hugh R. Frater, 60, serves as Non-Executive Chairman of the Board of VEREIT, Inc. and as a director of ABR Reinsurance 

Capital Holdings Ltd. Mr. Frater previously worked at Berkadia Commercial Mortgage LLC (“Berkadia”), a commercial real 

estate company providing comprehensive capital solutions and investment sales advisory and research services for 

multifamily and commercial properties. He served as Chairman of Berkadia from April 2014 to December 2015 and he 

served as Chief Executive Officer of Berkadia from August 2010 to April 2014. From November 2007 to June 2010, 

Mr. Frater was the Chief Operating Officer of Good Energies, Inc., and from February 2004 to May 2007, Mr. Frater was an 

Executive Vice President at PNC Financial Services, where he led the real estate division. Mr. Frater was a Founding Partner 
156

and Managing Director of BlackRock, Inc. from August 1988 to February 2004, where he led the real estate practice. 

Mr. Frater serves on the Real Estate Advisory Board at the Columbia University Graduate School of Business and is also a 

member of its Board of Overseers. Mr. Frater has been a Fannie Mae director since January 2016. 

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee concluded that Mr. Frater should serve as a director due to his 

extensive experience in business, finance, capital markets, risk management, mortgage lending, real estate, low income 

housing and the regulation of financial institutions, which he gained in the positions described above.

Brenda J. Gaines, 66, served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Diners Club North America, a subsidiary of 

Citigroup, from October 2002 until her retirement in April 2004. She served as President, Diners Club North America, from 

February 1999 to September 2002. From 1988 until her appointment as President, she held various positions within Diners 

Club North America, Citigroup and Citigroup’s predecessor corporations. She also served as Deputy Chief of Staff for the 

Mayor of the City of Chicago from 1985 to 1987 and as Chicago Commissioner of Housing from 1983 to 1985. Ms. Gaines 

also has over 12 years of experience with the Department of Housing and Urban Development, including serving as Deputy 

Regional Administrator from 1980 to 1981. Ms. Gaines is currently a member of the Board of Directors of AGL Resources 

Inc., where she serves as a member of both the Audit Committee and the Nominating, Governance and Corporate 

Responsibility Committee, and Tenet Healthcare Corporation, where she chairs the Audit Committee and serves as a member 

of the Compensation Committee. She previously was a member of the Board of Directors of NICOR, Inc. from April 2006 to 

December 2011, where she served on the Corporate Governance Committee, and Office Depot, Inc. from February 2002 to 

August 2013, where she served as a member of both the Audit Committee and the Corporate Governance and Nominating 

Committee. Ms. Gaines initially became a Fannie Mae director in September 2006, before we were put into conservatorship, 

and FHFA appointed Ms. Gaines to Fannie Mae’s Board in December 2008. Ms. Gaines serves as Chair of the Compensation 

Committee and is also a member of the Audit Committee and the Executive Committee. 

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee concluded that Ms. Gaines should continue to serve as a director due 

to her extensive experience in business, finance, accounting, risk management, public policy matters, real estate, low-income 

housing and the regulation of financial institutions, which she gained in the positions described above.

Renee L. Glover, 66, is the Founder and Managing Member of The Catalyst Group, LLC, a national consulting firm focused 

on urban revitalization, real estate development and community building, urban policy, and business transformation. Ms. 

Glover is currently a member of the Board of Directors of Enterprise Community Partners, Inc. Ms. Glover served on the 

Board of Directors of Habitat for Humanity International from November 2006 to November 2015, including serving as 

Chair of the Board of Directors from November 2013 to November 2015. Committees on which she served during her time 

as a member of the Board of Directors of Habitat for Humanity International included the Audit Committee, Finance 

Committee, Operations Committee and Executive Committee. Ms. Glover served as a member of the Board of Directors of 

the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta from January 2009 to December 2014, where she served on the Audit and Operational 

Risk Committee. She also served as a Commissioner of the Bipartisan Policy Center Housing Commission from October 

2011 to September 2014. The Commission was responsible for coming up with a set of bipartisan recommendations 

concerning federal housing policy and housing finance. Ms. Glover served as president and chief executive officer of the 

Atlanta Housing Authority and its affiliates from September 1994 to September 2013. She also served as a consultant for the 

Atlanta Housing Authority from September 2013 to November 2013 to facilitate the transition of leadership upon her 

retirement. Prior to joining the Atlanta Housing Authority, Ms. Glover was a corporate finance attorney in Atlanta and New 

York. Ms. Glover serves on the Board of Advisors of the University of Pennsylvania’s Institute of Urban Research. Ms. 

Glover has been a Fannie Mae director since January 2016. 

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee concluded that Ms. Glover should serve as a director due to her 

extensive experience in business, finance, risk management, public policy matters, real estate, low-income housing and the 

regulation of financial institutions, which she gained in the positions described above.

Frederick B. “Bart” Harvey III, 66, retired in March 2008 from his role as chairman of the Board of Trustees of Enterprise 

Community Partners and Enterprise Community Investment, providers of development capital and technical expertise to 

create affordable housing and rebuild communities. Enterprise is a national non-profit that raises funds from the private 

sector to finance homes primarily for low and very low income people. Enterprise has also pioneered “green” affordable 

housing with its EnterpriseGreen Communities initiative. Mr. Harvey was Enterprise’s chief executive officer from 1993 to 

2007. He joined Enterprise in 1984, and a year later became vice chairman. Before joining Enterprise, Mr. Harvey served for 

10 years in various domestic and international positions with Dean Witter Reynolds (now Morgan Stanley), leaving as 

Managing Director of Corporate Finance. Mr. Harvey was a member of the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan 

Bank of Atlanta from 1996 to 1999, a director of the National Housing Trust from 1990 to 2008, and also served as an 

executive committee member of the National Housing Conference from 1999 to 2008. Over the last year, Mr. Harvey has 

served as the Chair of the Calvert Social Investment Foundation, which makes “impact loans” to low-income borrowers and 
157

organizations serving low-income borrowers or addressing social issues such as environmental issues, affordable housing, 

health clinics, charter schools and microfinance. Mr. Harvey initially became a Fannie Mae director in August 2008, before 

we were put into conservatorship, and FHFA appointed Mr. Harvey to Fannie Mae’s Board in December 2008. Mr. Harvey 

serves as Chair of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee and as a member of the Risk Policy & Capital 

Committee and the Executive Committee. 

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee concluded that Mr. Harvey should continue to serve as a director due 

to his extensive experience in business, finance, capital markets, risk management, public policy matters, real estate, lowincome housing and homebuilding, which he gained in the positions described above. 

Robert H. Herz, 62, serves as President of Robert H. Herz LLC, providing consulting services on financial reporting and 

other matters. He previously served as a senior advisor to and as a member of the Advisory Board of Workiva Inc. (formerly 

WebFilings LLC), a provider of financial reporting software, from February 2011 to December 2014. From July 2002 to 

September 2010, Mr. Herz was Chairman of the Financial Accounting Standards Board, or FASB. He was also a part-time 

member of the International Accounting Standards Board, or IASB, from January 2001 to June 2002. He was a partner in 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP from 1985 until his retirement in 2002. He serves on the Accounting Standards Oversight 

Council of Canada, as a member of the Standing Advisory Group of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, as a 

member of the Board of Directors of the Sustainability Accounting Standards Board, on the Advisory Board of the 

Manchester Business School in England, on the Advisory Council of AccountAbility, as a member of the Independent 

Investment Committee of the United Nations Office for Project Services (“UNOPS”), and as an executive in residence at the 

Columbia Business School. Mr. Herz is currently a member of the Board of Directors of Morgan Stanley, where he serves as 

Chair of the Audit Committee and as a member of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee, a member of the 

Board of Directors of Workiva Inc., and a member of the Board of Directors of itBit Trust Company, LLC and its parent 

Kabompo Holdings, Ltd. Mr. Herz has been a Fannie Mae director since June 2011. Mr. Herz serves as a member of the 

Audit Committee and the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee. 

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee concluded that Mr. Herz should continue to serve as a director due to 

his extensive experience in accounting, business, finance, capital markets, risk management and the regulation of financial 

institutions, which he gained in the positions described above. 

Timothy J. Mayopoulos, 56, has been President and Chief Executive Officer of Fannie Mae since June 2012. He previously 

served as Fannie Mae’s Executive Vice President, Chief Administrative Officer, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary 

from September 2010 to June 2012, and as Fannie Mae’s Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary 

from April 2009 to September 2010. Before joining Fannie Mae, Mr. Mayopoulos was Executive Vice President and General 

Counsel of Bank of America Corporation from January 2004 to December 2008. He was Managing Director and General 

Counsel, Americas of Deutsche Bank AG’s Corporate and Investment Bank from January 2002 to January 2004. He was 

Managing Director and Senior Deputy General Counsel, Americas of Credit Suisse First Boston from November 2000 to 

May 2001, and Managing Director and Associate General Counsel of Donaldson, Lufkin & Jenrette, Inc. from May 1996 to 

November 2000. Mr. Mayopoulos was previously in private law practice at Davis Polk & Wardwell and served in the Office 

of the Independent Counsel during the Whitewater investigation. Mr. Mayopoulos is currently a member of the Board of 

Directors of Science Applications International Corporation (“SAIC”), where he serves as a member of the Audit Committee 

and Chair of the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee. Mr. Mayopoulos has been a Fannie Mae director since 

June 2012. He is a member of the Executive Committee.

Mr. Mayopoulos serves as a member of our Board of Directors pursuant to an FHFA order that specifies that our Chief 

Executive Officer will serve as a member of the Board. In addition, the Nominating and Corporate Governance Committee 

concluded that Mr. Mayopoulos should continue to serve as a director due to his extensive experience in business, finance, 

risk management, public policy, mortgage lending and the regulation of financial institutions, which he gained in the 

positions described above. 

Diane C. Nordin, 57, served as a partner of Wellington Management Company, LLP, a private asset management company, 

from December 1995 to December 2011, and originally joined Wellington in 1991. She served in many global leadership 

roles at Wellington, most notably as head of Fixed Income, Vice Chair of the Compensation Committee and Audit Chair of 

the Wellington Management Trust Company. Ms. Nordin spent over three decades in the investment business, having 

previously been employed by Fidelity Investments and Putnam Investments. Ms. Nordin is a Chartered Financial Analyst. 

Following her retirement from the asset management industry, Ms. Nordin served as an Advanced Leadership Initiative 

Fellow at Harvard University from December 2011 to December 2012. Ms. Nordin currently serves as a Trustee of Wheaton 

College, where she is an Executive Committee and Audit Committee member and Chair of the Investment Committee. She is 

also a Director of the Appalachian Mountain Club, where she is Chair of the Investment and Audit Committees, and a 
158

Foundation Board Member of the Massachusetts College of Art and Design. Ms. Nordin has been a Fannie Mae director 

since November 2013. Ms. Nordin serves as a member of the Audit Committee and the Compensation Committee. 

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee concluded that Ms. Nordin should continue to serve as a director due 

to her extensive experience in business, finance, capital markets, mortgage securities investment and the regulation of 

financial institutions, which she gained in the positions described above.

Egbert L. J. Perry, 60, is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of The Integral Group LLC. Founded in 1993 by 

Mr. Perry, Integral is a real estate development, advisory and investment management company based in Atlanta. Mr. Perry 

has over 35 years of experience as a real estate professional, including work in urban development, developing and investing 

in mixed-income, mixed-use communities, affordable/work force housing and commercial real estate projects in markets 

across the country. Mr. Perry currently serves as Chair of the Advisory Board of the Penn Institute for Urban Research and as 

a long-time trustee of the University of Pennsylvania. Mr. Perry also served from 2002 through 2008 as a director of the 

Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. Mr. Perry has been a Fannie Mae director since December 2008 and Chairman of Fannie 

Mae’s Board since March 2014. Mr. Perry is Chair of the Executive Committee. 

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee concluded that Mr. Perry should continue to serve as a director due to 

his extensive experience in business, finance, accounting, risk management, real estate, low-income housing and 

homebuilding, which he gained in the positions described above. 

Jonathan Plutzik, 61, has served as Chairman of Betsy Ross Investors, LLC since August 2005. He also has served as 

President of the Jonathan Plutzik and Lesley Goldwasser Family Foundation Inc. since January 2003. Mr. Plutzik served as 

Non-Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors at Firaxis Games from June 2002 to December 2005. Before that, he 

served from 1978 to June 2002 in various positions with Credit Suisse First Boston, retiring in June 2002 from his role as 

Vice Chairman. Mr. Plutzik has been a Fannie Mae director since November 2009. Mr. Plutzik is Chair of the Strategic 

Initiatives Committee and is a member of the Compensation Committee, the Executive Committee and the Risk Policy & 

Capital Committee. 

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee concluded that Mr. Plutzik should continue to serve as a director due to 

his extensive experience in business, finance, capital markets, risk management, mortgage lending and the regulation of 

financial institutions, which he gained in the positions described above. 

David H. Sidwell, 62, served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of Morgan Stanley from March 2004 to 

October 2007, when he retired. From 1984 to March 2004, Mr. Sidwell worked for JPMorgan Chase & Co. in a variety of 

financial and operating positions, most recently as Chief Financial Officer of JPMorgan Chase’s investment bank from 

January 2000 to March 2004. Prior to joining JP Morgan in 1984, Mr. Sidwell was with Price Waterhouse LLP, a major 

public accounting firm, from 1975 to 1984. Mr. Sidwell is currently a member of the Board of Directors and Senior 

Independent Director of UBS AG, where he serves as Chair of the Risk Committee and a member of the Governance & 

Nominating Committee. He is also a member of the Board of Directors of Ace Limited, where he serves as a member of the 

Audit Committee. He previously was a member of the Board of Directors of MSCI Inc. from November 2007 through 

September 2008, where he served as Chair of the Audit Committee and a member of the Nominating and Corporate 

Governance Committee. Mr. Sidwell served as a Trustee of the International Accounting Standards Committee Foundation 

from January 2007 until his term ended in December 2012. Mr. Sidwell has been a Fannie Mae director since December 

2008. Mr. Sidwell is Chair of the Risk Policy & Capital Committee and a member of the Compensation Committee and the 

Executive Committee.

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee concluded that Mr. Sidwell should continue to serve as a director due 

to his extensive experience in business, finance, capital markets, accounting, risk management and the regulation of financial 

institutions, which he gained in the positions described above.

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

Conservatorship and Delegation of Authority to Board of Directors

On September 6, 2008, the Director of FHFA appointed FHFA as our conservator in accordance with the GSE Act. As 

conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers and privileges of Fannie Mae, and of any shareholder, officer or 

director of Fannie Mae with respect to Fannie Mae and its assets. As a result, our Board of Directors no longer had the power 

or duty to manage, direct or oversee our business and affairs.
159

In November 2008, FHFA, as conservator, reconstituted our Board of Directors and delegated specified authorities to it. 

FHFA’s delegation of authority to the Board became effective in December 2008, when FHFA appointed nine Board members 

to serve in addition to the Board Chairman, who was appointed by FHFA in September 2008. The delegation of authority will 

remain in effect until modified or rescinded by the conservator. 

Our directors serve on behalf of the conservator and exercise their authority as directed by and with the approval, where 

required, of the conservator. Our directors have no fiduciary duties to any person or entity except to the conservator. 

Accordingly, our directors 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. 

In connection with FHFA’s delegation of authority to the Board, in November 2008, FHFA instructed the Board to consult 

with and obtain FHFA’s approval before taking action in certain specified areas. FHFA revised and replaced these instructions 

in November 2012 to provide greater specificity on the respective roles and responsibilities of FHFA, the Board and 

management in relation to the conservatorship. Since 2012, FHFA has slightly modified the 2012 instructions. As modified, 

FHFA’s 2012 instructions require the Board to oversee that management consult with and obtain the written approval of the 

conservator before taking action in the following areas: 

• engaging in redemptions or repurchases of our subordinated debt, except as may be necessary to comply with the 

senior preferred stock purchase agreement;

• increases in Board risk limits, material changes in accounting policy, and reasonably foreseeable material increases 

in operational risk;

• matters that relate to the conservator’s powers, our conservatorship status, or the legal effect of the conservatorship 

on contracts;

• retention and termination of external auditors and law firms serving as consultants to the Board; 

• agreements relating to litigation, claims, regulatory proceedings or tax-related matters where the value of the claim 

exceeds a specified threshold, including related matters that aggregate to more than the threshold;

• alterations or changes to the terms of the master agreement between us and one of our top five single-family sellers 

or top five single-family servicers that are not otherwise mandated by FHFA and that will materially alter the 

business relationship between the parties;

• the termination of a contract between us and one of our top five single-family sellers or top five single-family 

servicers, other than an expiration pursuant to its terms;

• actions that in the reasonable business judgment of management, at the time that the action is to be taken, are likely 

to cause significant reputational risk to us or result in substantial negative publicity; 

• creation of any subsidiary or affiliate, or entering into a substantial transaction with a subsidiary or affiliate, except 

for the creation of, or a transaction with, a subsidiary or affiliate undertaken in the ordinary course of business;

• setting or increasing the compensation or benefits payable to members of the Board of Directors;

• entering into new compensation arrangements or increasing amounts or benefits payable under existing 

compensation arrangements of executives at the senior vice president level and above, and other executives as FHFA

may deem necessary to successfully execute its role as conservator;

• any establishment or modification by us of performance management processes for executives at the senior vice 

president level and above and any executives designated as “officers” pursuant to Section 16 of the Exchange Act, 

including the establishment or modification of a conservator scorecard;

• establishing the annual operating budget; and

• matters that require the approval of or consultation with Treasury under the senior preferred stock purchase 

agreement. See “Note 13, Equity” for a list of matters that require the approval of Treasury under the senior 

preferred stock purchase agreement.

The 2012 instructions state that, in regards to the matters described above, the Board should review and approve these 

matters before they are submitted to the conservator for approval. FHFA’s instructions also require the company to notify 

FHFA of planned changes in business processes or operations, so that FHFA may participate in decision-making as FHFA

determines appropriate. For more information on the conservatorship, refer to “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury 

Agreements—Conservatorship.”
160

Composition of Board of Directors

In November 2008, FHFA directed that our Board should have a minimum of nine and not more than thirteen directors. There 

is a non-executive Chairman of the Board, and our Chief Executive Officer is the only corporate officer serving as a director. 

Our initial directors were appointed by the conservator and subsequent vacancies have been and may continue to be filled by 

the Board, subject to review by the conservator. Each director serves on the Board until the earlier of (1) resignation or 

removal by the conservator or (2) the election of a successor director at an annual meeting of shareholders.

Fannie Mae’s bylaws provide that each director holds office for the term for which he or she was elected or appointed and 

until his or her successor is chosen and qualified or until he or she dies, resigns, retires or is removed from office in 

accordance with applicable law or regulation, whichever occurs first. Under the Charter Act, each director is elected or 

appointed for a term ending on the date of our next annual shareholders’ meeting. As noted above, however, the conservator 

appointed the initial directors to our Board, delegated to the Board the authority to appoint directors to subsequent vacancies 

subject to conservator review, and defined the term of service of directors during conservatorship. 

Under the Charter Act, our Board shall at all times have as members at least one person from each of the homebuilding, 

mortgage lending and real estate industries, and at least one person from an organization that has represented consumer or 

community interests for not less than two years or one person who has demonstrated a career commitment to the provision of 

housing for low-income households. It is the policy of the Board that a substantial majority of Fannie Mae’s directors will be 

independent, in accordance with the standards adopted by the Board. In addition, our Corporate Governance guidelines 

provide that the Board, as a group, must be knowledgeable in business, finance, capital markets, accounting, risk 

management, public policy, mortgage lending, real estate, low-income housing, homebuilding, regulation of financial 

institutions, technology and any other areas that may be relevant to the safe and sound operation of Fannie Mae. In addition 

to expertise in the areas noted above, our Corporate Governance Guidelines specify that the Nominating & Corporate 

Governance Committee will seek out Board members who possess the highest personal values, judgment, and integrity, and 

who have an understanding of the regulatory and policy environment in which Fannie Mae does business. The Committee 

also considers whether a prospective candidate for the Board has the ability to attend meetings and fully participate in the 

activities of the Board.

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee also considers diversity when evaluating the composition of the Board. 

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines specify that the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee is committed to 

considering minorities, women and individuals with disabilities in the identification and evaluation process of prospective 

candidates. The Guidelines also specify that the Committee will seek out Board members who represent diversity in ideas, 

perspectives, gender, race, and disability. These provisions of our Corporate Governance Guidelines implement FHFA

regulations that require the company to implement and maintain policies and procedures that, among other things, encourage 

the consideration of diversity in nominating or soliciting nominees for positions on our Board.

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee evaluates the qualifications and performance of current directors on an 

annual basis. Factors taken into consideration by the Committee in making this evaluation include:

• a director’s contribution to the effective functioning of the corporation;

• any change in the director’s principal area of responsibility with his or her company or his or her retirement from the 

company;

• whether the director continues to bring relevant experience to the Board;

• whether the director has the ability to attend meetings and fully participate in the activities of the Board;

• whether the director has developed any relationships with Fannie Mae or another organization, or other circumstances 

have arisen, that might make it inappropriate for the director to continue serving on the Board;

• the director’s age and length of service on the Board; and

• the director’s particular experience, qualifications, attributes and skills.

Information regarding the particular experience, qualifications, attributes and skills of each of our current directors is 

provided above under “Directors.”

Board Leadership Structure; Risk Management Oversight

We have had a non-executive Chairman of the Board since 2004. FHFA regulations and our Corporate Governance 

Guidelines require separate Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer positions and require that the Chairman of 

the Board be an independent director. Our Board is also structured so that all but one of our directors, our Chief Executive 

Officer, are independent. A non-executive Chairman structure enables non-management directors to raise issues and concerns 
161

for Board consideration without immediately involving management and is consistent with the Board’s emphasis on 

independent oversight, as well as our conservator’s directives.

Our Board has six standing committees: the Audit Committee, the Compensation Committee, the Executive Committee, the 

Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, the Risk Policy & Capital Committee, and the Strategic Initiatives 

Committee. Pursuant to FHFA direction, the Board and the standing Board committees function in accordance with their 

designated duties and with the authorities as set forth in federal statutes, regulations and FHFA guidance, Delaware law 

(insofar as the company has adopted its provisions for corporate governance purposes) and in Fannie Mae’s bylaws and the 

applicable charters of Fannie Mae’s Board committees. Such duties or authorities may be modified by the conservator at any 

time. 

The Board oversees risk management primarily through the Risk Policy & Capital Committee. FHFA regulations that became 

effective in December 2015 set forth risk management requirements for our Board and our Risk Policy & Capital Committee, 

as described below, which we meet. These regulations require that our Board of Directors approve, have in effect at all times, 

and periodically review an enterprise-wide risk management program that establishes and is aligned with our risk appetite, 

aligns the risk appetite with our strategies and objectives, and addresses our exposure to credit risk, market risk, liquidity risk, 

business risk and operational risk. Our risk management program must include risk limitations appropriate to each line of 

business, appropriate policies and procedures relating to risk management governance, risk oversight infrastructure, and 

processes and systems for identifying and reporting risks, including emerging risks. Our program must also contain 

provisions for monitoring compliance with our risk limit structure and risk policies and effective and timely implementation 

of corrective actions. Additional provisions must specify management’s authority and independence to carry out risk 

management responsibilities and the integration of risk management with management’s goals and compensation structure. 

FHFA’s regulations require our Risk Policy & Capital Committee to assist the Board in carrying out its oversight of our risk 

management program. Our Risk Policy & Capital Committee must also:

• be chaired by a director not serving Fannie Mae in a management capacity;

• have at least one member with risk management experience that is commensurate with our capital structure, risk 

appetite, complexity, activities, size and other appropriate risk-related factors;

• have committee members with a practical understanding of risk management principles and practices relevant to 

Fannie Mae; 

• fully document its meetings; and

• report directly to the Board and not as part of, or combined with, another committee.

For more information on the role of our Board and our Chief Risk Officer in risk oversight, see “MD&A—Risk Management

—Enterprise Risk Governance—Board of Directors.”

Corporate Governance Information, Committee Charters and Codes of Conduct

Our Corporate Governance Guidelines, as well as the charters for our Board’s Audit Committee, Compensation Committee, 

Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, Risk Policy & Capital Committee, and Strategic Initiatives Committee, are 

posted on our website, www.fanniemae.com, under “Governance” in the “About Us” section of our website. Our Executive 

Committee does not have a written charter. The responsibilities, duties and authorities of the Executive Committee are set 

forth in our bylaws, which are also posted on our website, www.fanniemae.com, under “Governance” in the “About Us” 

section of our website.

We have a Code of Conduct that is applicable to all officers and employees and a Code of Conduct and Conflicts of Interest 

Policy for Members of the Board of Directors. Our Code of Conduct also serves as the code of ethics for our Chief Executive 

Officer and senior financial officers required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and implementing regulations of the SEC. 

We have posted these codes on our website, www.fanniemae.com, under “Governance” in the “About Us” section of our 

website. We intend to disclose any changes to or waivers from these codes that apply to any of our executive officers or 

directors by posting this information on our website.

Although our equity securities are no longer listed on the New York Stock Exchange (“NYSE”), we are required by FHFA’s 

corporate governance regulations to follow specified NYSE corporate governance requirements relating to, among other 

things, the independence of our Board members and the charters, independence, composition, expertise, duties and other 

requirements of our Board Committees.
162

Audit Committee Membership

Our Board has a standing Audit Committee consisting of Mr. Forrester, who is the Chair, Ms. Gaines, Mr. Herz and Ms. 

Nordin, all of whom are independent under the requirements of independence set forth in FHFA’s corporate governance 

regulations (which requires the standard of independence adopted by the NYSE), Fannie Mae’s Corporate Governance 

Guidelines and other SEC rules and regulations applicable to audit committees. The Board has determined that Mr. Forrester, 

Ms. Gaines, Mr. Herz and Ms. Nordin each have the requisite experience, as discussed in “Directors,” to qualify as an “audit 

committee financial expert” under the rules and regulations of the SEC and has designated each of them as such. 

Executive Sessions

Our non-management directors meet regularly in executive sessions without management present. Our Board of Directors 

reserves time for executive sessions at every regularly scheduled Board meeting. The non-executive Chairman of the Board, 

Mr. Perry, presides over these sessions.

Communications with Directors or the Audit Committee

Interested parties wishing to communicate any concerns or questions about Fannie Mae to the non-executive Chairman of the 

Board or to our non-management directors individually or as a group may do so by electronic mail addressed to 

“board@fanniemae.com,” or by U.S. mail addressed to Board of Directors, c/o Office of the Corporate Secretary, Fannie 

Mae, Mail Stop 1H-2S/05, 3900 Wisconsin Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20016-2892. Communications may be addressed to 

a specific director or directors, including Mr. Perry, the Chairman of the Board, or to groups of directors, such as the 

independent or non-management directors.

Interested parties wishing to communicate with the Audit Committee regarding accounting, internal accounting controls or 

auditing matters may do so by electronic mail addressed to “auditcommittee@fanniemae.com,” or by U.S. mail addressed to 

Audit Committee, c/o Office of the Corporate Secretary, Fannie Mae, Mail Stop 1H-2S/05, 3900 Wisconsin Avenue NW, 

Washington, DC 20016-2892.

The Office of the Corporate Secretary is responsible for processing all communications to a director or directors. 

Communications that are deemed by the Office of the Corporate Secretary to be commercial solicitations, ordinary course 

customer inquiries or complaints, incoherent or obscene are not forwarded to directors.

Director Nominations; Shareholder Proposals

Under the GSE Act, FHFA, as conservator, has all rights, titles, powers and privileges of the shareholders and Board of 

Directors of Fannie Mae. As a result, Fannie Mae’s common shareholders no longer have the ability to recommend director 

nominees or elect the directors of Fannie Mae or bring business before any meeting of shareholders pursuant to the 

procedures in our bylaws. We currently do not plan to hold an annual meeting of shareholders in 2016. For more information 

on the conservatorship, refer to “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements—Conservatorship.”

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Our current executive officers who are not also members of the Board of Directors are listed below. They have provided the 

following information about their principal occupation, business experience and other matters. 

David C. Benson, 56, has been Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since April 2013. Mr. Benson previously 

served as Executive Vice President—Capital Markets, Securitization & Corporate Strategy from September 2012 to April 

2013 and as Executive Vice President—Capital Markets from April 2009 to September 2012. He also served as Treasurer 

from June 2010 to January 2012. Mr. Benson previously served as Fannie Mae’s Executive Vice President—Capital Markets 

and Treasury from August 2008 to April 2009, as Fannie Mae’s Senior Vice President and Treasurer from March 2006 to 

August 2008, and as Fannie Mae’s Vice President and Assistant Treasurer from June 2002 to February 2006. Prior to joining 

Fannie Mae in 2002, Mr. Benson was Managing Director in the fixed income division of Merrill Lynch & Co. From 1988 

through 2002, he served in several capacities at Merrill Lynch in the areas of risk management, trading, debt syndication and 

e-commerce based in New York and London.

Andrew J. Bon Salle, 50, has been Executive Vice President—Single-Family Business since December 2014. Prior to that 

time, he served as Executive Vice President—Single-Family Underwriting, Pricing, and Capital Markets, from April 2013 to 

December 2014. Mr. Bon Salle previously served as Fannie Mae’s Senior Vice President and Head of Underwriting and 

Pricing from May 2011 to April 2013, Senior Vice President—Capital Markets from March 2006 to May 2011, and as Fannie 

Mae’s Vice President—Portfolio Management from November 2000 to February 2006. Mr. Bon Salle held the positions of 
163

Director, Finance from December 1996 to November 2000 and of Manager, Early Funding Programs from March 1994 to 

December 1996. Mr. Bon Salle joined Fannie Mae in September 1992 as a senior capital markets analyst.

Brian P. Brooks, 46, has been Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary since November 2014. 

Prior to joining Fannie Mae, Mr. Brooks was Vice Chairman of OneWest Bank N.A., from May 2011 to November 2014, 

where he served as chief legal officer. Previously, Mr. Brooks was a partner at the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers LLP, 

where he served from February 2008 through January 2011 as managing partner of the Washington, D.C. office and from 

February 2010 through April 2011 as group leader of the firm’s financial services practice.

Joy C. Cianci, 53, has been Senior Vice President of Credit Portfolio Management since September 2014. Ms. Cianci has 

served in various roles at Fannie Mae for over 20 years. She served as Senior Vice President—Making Home Affordable and 

Foreclosure Prevention from September 2012 to September 2014 and as Senior Vice President—Making Home Affordable 

from June 2010 to September 2012. Ms. Cianci was Senior Vice President—Giving and Community Outreach from 

December 2009 to June 2010, having previously served as Vice President in Fannie Mae’s Office of Community & 

Charitable Giving, from July 2007 to December 2009, and as Vice President in Fannie Mae’s Housing and Community 

Development division, from April 2006 to July 2007. Ms. Cianci served as Vice President in various roles in our SingleFamily division and in our former eBusiness division, from January 2004 to April 2006. Prior to that time, she served as a 

Director in our eBusiness division and in our Legal Division. Ms. Cianci joined Fannie Mae in June 1993 as counsel. 

Jeffery R. Hayward, 60, Executive Vice President and Head of Multifamily, has served as Head of Multifamily since January 

2012, first as Senior Vice President and, since December 2014, as Executive Vice President. Mr. Hayward has served in 

various roles at Fannie Mae for over 25 years. He previously served as Fannie Mae’s Senior Vice President—National 

Servicing Organization from April 2010 to January 2012. He also served as Senior Vice President of Community Lending in 

Fannie Mae’s Multifamily division from May 2004 to April 2010. Prior to that time, Mr. Hayward served as both a Senior 

Vice President and a Vice President in Fannie Mae’s Single-Family division, including as Senior Vice President in the 

National Business Center from November 2001 to May 2004, as Vice President for Single-Family Business Strategy from 

November 1999 to November 2001, as Vice President for Asset Management Services from August 1998 to November 1999 

and as Vice President for Quality Control and Operations from January 1996 to August 1998. Mr. Hayward also served as 

Vice President for Risk Management from June 1993 to January 1996. Before that, he served as Director, Loan Acquisition 

from October 1992 to June 1993, as Director, Marketing from December 1989 to September 1992, and as Senior Negotiator 

from July 1988 to December 1989. Mr. Hayward joined the company in April 1987 as a senior MBS representative. 

Kimberly Johnson, 43, has been Senior Vice President and Chief Risk Officer since November 2015 and served as Senior 

Vice President and Deputy Chief Risk Officer from June 2013 to November 2015. Ms. Johnson served in Fannie Mae’s 

Capital Markets group as Senior Vice President and as Vice President responsible for trading multifamily loans and securities 

and for multifamily credit pricing from September 2009 to June 2013. Prior to that time, Ms. Johnson was responsible for 

Metrics and Reporting for the Making Home Affordable Program, from March 2009 to September 2009. Ms. Johnson joined 

Fannie Mae in May 2006 as a Vice President in Capital Markets.

Bruce R. Lee, 50, has been Senior Vice President and Head of Operations and Technology since January 2016. Mr. Lee 

previously served as Senior Vice President and Chief Information Officer from April 2014, when he joined Fannie Mae, to 

January 2016. Before joining Fannie Mae, Mr. Lee was Group Chief Information Officer for NYSE Euronext, overseeing 

technology in the exchange traded securities sector, from 2012 to 2014. From 2006 to 2012, he worked in HSBC’s investment 

banking and trading business in Canada, the U.S., and Latin America, where he served as Chief Operating Officer.

Zachary Oppenheimer, 56, has been Senior Vice President and Head of Customer Engagement since May 2011. Mr. 

Oppenheimer has notified us that he plans to retire from the company in June 2016. Mr. Oppenheimer previously served as 

Fannie Mae’s Senior Vice President and Chief Acquisition Officer from August 2009 to May 2011, and as Senior Vice 

President, Single-Family Mortgage Business from November 1998 through August 2009. Mr. Oppenheimer was Vice 

President of Marketing from April 1991 through November 1998. He held the positions of Director, Sales and Marketing 

from June 1988 to April 1991, of Director, MBS from May 1987 to June 1988, of MBS Manager from August 1985 to May 

1987, and of Senior Sales Representative from October 1984 to August 1985. Mr. Oppenheimer joined Fannie Mae in August 

1983 as an associate quality control representative. 

Under our bylaws, each executive officer holds office until his or her successor is chosen and qualified or until he or she dies, 

resigns, retires or is removed from office, whichever occurs first. 
164

Section 16(a) Beneficial Ownership Reporting Compliance

Our directors and officers file with the SEC reports on their ownership of our stock and on changes in their stock ownership. 

Based on a review of forms filed during 2015 or with respect to 2015 and on written representations from our directors and 

officers, we believe that all of our directors and officers timely filed all required reports and reported all transactions 

reportable during 2015.

Item 11. Executive Compensation

COMPENSATION DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

Named Executives for 2015

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis focuses on compensation decisions relating to our Chief Executive Officer, our 

Chief Financial Officer, and our next three most highly compensated executive officers during 2015. We refer to these 

individuals as our named executives, and to our compensation arrangements for 2015 with our named executives other than 

our Chief Executive Officer as the “2015 executive compensation program.” For 2015, our named executives were: 

• Timothy J. Mayopoulos, President and Chief Executive Officer; 

• David C. Benson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer; 

• Andrew J. Bon Salle, Executive Vice President—Single-Family Business; 

• Brian P. Brooks, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary; and

• Jeffery R. Hayward, Executive Vice President and Head of Multifamily. 

This Compensation Discussion and Analysis addresses our executive compensation program that was in effect for 2015. 

Executive Summary 

Due to our conservatorship status and other legal requirements discussed under “Chief Executive Officer Compensation and 

2015 Executive Compensation Program—Impact of Conservatorship and Other Legal Requirements,” FHFA, our conservator 

and regulator, has significant oversight and approval rights over our executive compensation arrangements and 

determinations. The program in place for 2015 executive compensation was developed by FHFA in consultation with 

Treasury in 2012 and has not been substantially changed since then.

Named executives other than our Chief Executive Officer receive two principal elements of compensation: base salary and 

deferred salary. Base salary is paid on a bi-weekly basis, and deferred salary is paid on a quarterly basis after a one-year 

deferral. There are two components to deferred salary: a fixed portion that is subject to reduction if an executive leaves the 

company within one year following the end of the performance year, and an at-risk portion. One half of the at-risk portion is 

subject to reduction based on corporate performance against goals for 2015 set by the conservator, referred to as the 2015

conservatorship scorecard, and the other half of the at-risk portion is subject to reduction based on individual performance, 

taking into account corporate performance against goals, established by the Board of Directors, referred to as the 2015 Board 

of Directors’ goals. Named executives do not receive bonuses or any form of equity or performance-based long-term 

incentives. 

Except for a brief period in 2015 (see “Chief Executive Officer Compensation and 2015 Executive Compensation Program—

Compensation of our Chief Executive Officer”), our Chief Executive Officer’s total target direct compensation has consisted 

solely of a base salary of $600,000.

While reducing pay levels to conserve taxpayer resources was an important objective of FHFA’s redesign of our executive 

compensation program in 2012, we and FHFA understand that this objective must be balanced against our need to attract and 

retain able and experienced executives to prudently manage our $3.0 trillion book of business and enable the company to be 

an effective steward of taxpayer resources. In 2015, under the leadership of our experienced executives, including our named 

executives, we achieved net income of $11.0 billion. We completed or substantially completed all of the corporate goals in 

the 2015 conservatorship scorecard, and in January 2016 FHFA determined that the portion of 2015 at-risk deferred salary 

subject to performance against these goals would be paid at 97% of target. The goals in the 2015 conservatorship scorecard 

related to the following objectives:

• Maintain in a safe and sound manner, credit availability and foreclosure prevention activities for new and refinanced 

mortgages to foster liquid, efficient, competitive and resilient national housing finance markets;
165

• Reduce taxpayer risk through increasing the role of private capital in the mortgage market; and

• Build a new single-family securitization infrastructure for use by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the “Enterprises”) 

that is also adaptable for use by other participants in the secondary market in the future.

We also achieved the 2015 Board of Directors’ goals in a manner that the Board of Directors viewed as responsible, timely 

and of high quality. Based on its assessment of the company’s performance in January 2016, the Compensation Committee 

recommended and the Board of Directors determined that management should be credited with 100% performance of the 

goals as a result of management’s significant achievements. The 2015 Board of Directors’ goals were:

• Sustain and grow partnerships with lenders and other key housing stakeholders;

• Serve the market by providing products and services that help people own, rent, or stay in their homes;

• Build sustainable financial performance;

• Maintain a disciplined risk, control, and compliance environment; 

• Improve the company’s capabilities, infrastructure, and efficiency to prepare for a more competitive future; and

• Develop our workforce so that it is ready to meet the business challenges of today and into the future. 

See “Determination of 2015 Compensation” for more information on our performance against the FHFA objectives and the 

2015 Board of Directors’ goals. 

Chief Executive Officer Compensation and 2015 Executive Compensation Program

Overview 

FHFA has advised us that the design of our executive compensation program was intended to fulfill, and to balance, three 

primary objectives: 

• Maintain Reduced Pay Levels to Conserve Taxpayer Resources. Given our conservatorship status, our executive 

compensation program is designed to reduce pay levels relative to firms that are not in conservatorship. 

• Attract and Retain Executive Talent. The 2015 executive compensation program is intended to attract and retain 

executive talent with the specialized skills and knowledge necessary to effectively manage a large financial services 

company. Executives with these qualifications are needed for the company to continue to fulfill its important role in 

providing liquidity to the mortgage market and supporting the housing market, as well as to prudently manage our 

$3.0 trillion book of business and enable the company to be an effective steward of the government’s and taxpayers’

support. We face competition from both within the financial services industry and from businesses outside of this 

industry for qualified executives. The Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors regularly consider and 

discuss with FHFA the level of our executives’ compensation and whether changes are needed to attract or retain 

executives. 

• Reduce Pay if Goals Are Not Achieved. To support FHFA’s goals for our conservatorship and encourage performance 

in furtherance of these goals, 30% of each named executive’s total target direct compensation (other than the Chief 

Executive Officer’s compensation, as discussed in “Compensation of our Chief Executive Officer”) consists of “atrisk” deferred salary. At-risk deferred salary is subject to reduction based on corporate performance against the 

conservatorship scorecard and an assessment of individual performance that takes into account the company’s 

performance against the Board of Directors’ goals. 

Our current executive compensation levels put pressure on our ability to attract and retain executive talent, which is necessary 

for the company to prudently manage our $3.0 trillion book of business and enable the company to be an effective steward of 

the government’s and taxpayers’ support. As discussed in “Other Executive Compensation Considerations—Comparator 

Group and Role of Benchmark Data,” our named executives’ total target direct compensation under the 2015 executive 

compensation program in aggregate was substantially below the market median for comparable firms. Our inability to offer 

market-based compensation hinders our succession planning, particularly for our Chief Executive Officer role, and 

potentially our ability to hire other senior executives. See “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks associated with 

executive retention and succession planning.

Compensation of our Chief Executive Officer

Since 2013, Mr. Mayopoulos’s compensation had consisted solely of a base salary of $600,000. In May 2015, FHFA Director 

Melvin L. Watt informed our Board of Directors that it could submit a proposal for FHFA review and consideration on 

compensation for our Chief Executive Officer. Director Watt stated that the proposal should “address the Board’s obligation 
166

and FHFA’s conservatorship and supervisory objectives of providing for CEO retention; effective succession planning for the 

CEO position; and continuity, efficiency and stability of operations....” Additionally, the proposal “may not propose 

compensation for the CEO that is higher than the 25th percentile of the market, using the agreed-upon comparator group for 

FHFA evaluation of compensation of Fannie Mae’s executive officers.”

In formulating a proposal for our Chief Executive Officer’s compensation, the Board of Directors considered the importance 

of ensuring that Fannie Mae continue to act as a good steward of taxpayer resources while taking all prudent measures to 

attract and retain the leadership and talent required to keep the company functioning well and contributing to a better housing 

finance system going forward. 

In June 2015, FHFA approved changes to Mr. Mayopoulos’s compensation to address FHFA’s objectives. As a result, 

beginning July 1, 2015, Mr. Mayopoulos’s direct compensation consisted of base salary at an annual rate of $750,000, fixed 

deferred salary at an annual rate of $2,050,000, and at-risk deferred salary with an annual target amount of $1,200,000. Based 

on the FHFA-approved changes, the maximum potential cash flow that could have been paid out to our Chief Executive 

Officer (not including accruals of deferred salary to be paid at a future date) would have been $673,846 in 2015, $2,388,356 

in 2016, and $4,000,000 in 2017, if he achieved corporate and individual goals and remained with Fannie Mae. With these 

changes, Mr. Mayopoulos’s compensation had the same structure that applied to Fannie Mae’s other named executives. 

In November 2015, the Equity in Government Compensation Act of 2015 was enacted. This law required the Director of 

FHFA to suspend the compensation packages of our Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Executive Officer of Freddie Mac 

and, in their place, to establish the compensation and benefits that were in effect as of January 1, 2015. The law also provides 

that compensation and benefits for the position of chief executive officer of Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac may not be increased 

and these restrictions on chief executive officer compensation for each company are applicable as long as the company is in 

conservatorship or receivership. In accordance with this law, on December 1, 2015, the Director of FHFA directed Fannie 

Mae to decrease the total target annual direct compensation of Mr. Mayopoulos to $600,000, effective November 25, 2015. 

This $600,000 in annual direct compensation consists solely of base salary, and was the level of direct compensation in effect 

for Mr. Mayopoulos between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2015. This limit on the compensation of our Chief Executive 

Officer may negatively affect our ability to retain our Chief Executive Officer and will adversely affect our ability to engage 

in effective succession planning for this critical role. 

Impact of Conservatorship and Other Legal Requirements

As discussed in “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements—Conservatorship,” we have been under the 

conservatorship of FHFA since September 2008. The conservatorship and legislation enacted since we entered 

conservatorship significantly impacts the compensation received by our named executives, particularly our Chief Executive 

Officer, as well as the process by which executive compensation is determined. Regulatory and other legal requirements 

affecting our executive compensation program and policies include the following:

• Our directors serve on behalf of FHFA and exercise their authority subject to the direction of FHFA. More 

information about the role of our directors is described in “Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance

—Corporate Governance—Conservatorship and Delegation of Authority to Board of Directors.”

• While we are in conservatorship, FHFA, as our conservator, has retained the authority to approve and to modify both 

the terms and amount of any executive compensation. FHFA has directed that management consult with and obtain 

FHFA’s written approval before entering into new compensation arrangements or increasing amounts or benefits 

payable under existing compensation arrangements of executives at the senior vice president level and above, and 

other executives as FHFA may deem necessary to successfully execute its role as conservator. FHFA has also 

directed that management consult with and obtain FHFA’s written approval before establishing or modifying 

performance management processes for executives at the senior vice president level and above and any executives 

designated as “officers” pursuant to Section 16 of the Exchange Act.

• During the conservatorship, FHFA, as our conservator, has all powers of the shareholders. Accordingly, we have not 

held shareholders’ meetings since entering into conservatorship, nor have we held any shareholder advisory votes on 

executive compensation.

• The Equity in Government Compensation Act of 2015, establishes the annual direct compensation for our chief 

executive officer position at $600,000, consisting solely of base salary. The law also provides that compensation and 

benefits for our chief executive officer position may not be increased and these restrictions are applicable as long as 

Fannie Mae is in conservatorship or receivership. 

• FHFA, as our regulator, must approve any termination benefits we offer to our named executives and certain other 

officers identified by FHFA.
167

• Under the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury, we may not enter into any new 

compensation arrangements with, or increase amounts or benefits payable under existing compensation 

arrangements of, any named executives or executive officers without the consent of the Director of FHFA, in 

consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury.

• Under the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, we may not sell or issue any equity securities 

without the prior written consent of Treasury, other than as required by the terms of any binding agreement in effect 

on the date of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. This effectively eliminates our ability to offer stockbased compensation.

• Pursuant to the STOCK Act and related regulations issued by FHFA, the named executives are prohibited from 

receiving bonuses during any period of conservatorship on or after the April 4, 2012 enactment of the law. 
168

Elements of 2015 Executive Compensation Program

Direct Compensation

The table below summarizes the principal elements, objectives and key features of our 2015 executive compensation program 

for our named executives. As discussed in “Compensation of our Chief Executive Officer,” direct compensation for our Chief 

Executive Officer for the first six months of 2015 and since November 25, 2015 has consisted solely of base salary at an 

annual rate of $600,000. All elements of our named executives’ direct compensation are paid in cash. 

Compensation

Element Form

Primary

Compensation 

Objectives Key Features

Base Salary Fixed cash payments, which

are paid during the year on a

bi-weekly basis.

Attract and retain

named executives by

providing a fixed level

of current cash

compensation.

Base salary reflects each named executive’s 

level of responsibility and experience, as 

well as individual performance over time. 

Base salary is capped at $500,000 for all of 

our executive officers other than our Chief 

Executive Officer and Chief Financial 

Officer. 

Deferred Salary Deferred salary is earned in biweekly installments over the 

course of the performance year, 

and is paid in quarterly 

installments in March, June, 

September and December of 

the following year. Interest 

accrues on deferred salary at 

one-half of the one-year 

Treasury Bill rate in effect on 

the last business day 

immediately preceding the year 

in which the deferred salary is 

earned.

There are two elements of 

deferred salary: 

• a fixed portion that is subject 

to reduction if an executive 

leaves the company within 

one year following the end of 

the performance year; and

• an at-risk portion that is 

subject to reduction based on 

corporate and individual 

performance. 

Fixed Deferred Salary

Retain named

executives.

Earned but unpaid fixed deferred salary is 

subject to reduction if a named executive 

leaves the company within one year 

following the end of the performance year. 

The amount of earned but unpaid fixed 

deferred salary received by the named 

executive will be reduced by 2% for each 

full or partial month by which the 

executive’s separation date precedes 

January 31 of the second year following the 

performance year (or, if later, the end of the 

twenty-fourth month following the month in 

which the named executive first earns 

deferred salary). 

The reduction provisions applicable to 

payments of earned but unpaid fixed 

deferred salary do not apply if an officer’s 

employment terminates other than for cause 

at or after age 62, or age 55 with 10 years of 

service with Fannie Mae.

At-Risk Deferred Salary

Retain named

executives and

encourage them to

achieve corporate and

individual performance

objectives.

Equal to 30% of each named executive’s

total target direct compensation. Half of atrisk deferred salary is subject to reduction

based on corporate performance against the

2015 conservatorship scorecard as

determined by FHFA. The remaining half of

at-risk deferred salary is subject to

reduction based on individual performance

as determined by the Board of Directors,

with FHFA’s review, taking into account

corporate performance against the 2015

Board of Directors’ goals.

There is no potential for at-risk deferred

salary to be paid out at greater than 100% of

target; at-risk deferred salary is subject only

to reduction. 
169

Employee Benefits

Our employee benefits are a fundamental part of our 2015 executive compensation program, and serve as an important tool in 

attracting and retaining senior executives. We describe the employee benefits available in 2015 to our named executives in 

the table below. We provide more detail on our retirement plans available to our named executives under “Compensation 

Tables—Pension Benefits” and “Compensation Tables—Nonqualified Deferred Compensation.”

Benefit Form Primary Objective

401(k) Plan (“Retirement Savings

Plan”)

A tax-qualified defined contribution plan (401(k) plan) 

available to our employee population as a whole.

All of the named executives are eligible to participate 

in this plan.

Attract and retain named

executives by providing

retirement savings in a taxefficient manner.

Non-qualified Deferred 

Compensation (“Supplemental

Retirement Savings Plan”)

The Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan is an 

unfunded, non-tax-qualified defined contribution plan. 

The plan supplements our tax-qualified defined 

contribution plan by providing benefits to participants 

whose annual eligible earnings exceed the IRS limit on 

eligible compensation for 401(k) plans. All of the 

named executives are eligible to participate in this plan. 

In connection with our termination of our defined 

benefit pension plan, for a limited time we are 

providing additional benefits under this plan for 

employees close to retirement who meet age and length 

of service criteria. Mr. Benson and Mr. Hayward are 

eligible for these benefits.

Attract and retain named

executives by providing

additional retirement

savings.

Health, Welfare and Other

Benefits

In general, the named executives are eligible for the

same benefits available to our employee population as

a whole, including our medical insurance plans, life

insurance program and matching charitable gifts

program. The named executives are also eligible to

participate in our voluntary supplemental long-term

disability plan, which is available to many of our

employees.

Provide for the well-being

of the named executive and

his or her family.

Prior to 2014, we maintained a tax-qualified defined benefit pension plan that was generally available to employees before 

participation in the plan was frozen in 2007, as well as two non-tax-qualified supplemental plans. In 2013, these plans were 

amended to cease benefits accruals and were subsequently terminated. See “Compensation Tables—Pension Benefits” for 

more information on the payments Mr. Benson, Mr. Bon Salle and Mr. Hayward received in 2015 under these plans. Mr. 

Mayopoulos and Mr. Brooks joined Fannie Mae after participation in these plans was no longer available to new employees. 

The perquisites we provided to all of our named executives in aggregate in 2015 did not exceed $1,000. 

Sign-on Award

In addition to the direct compensation and employee benefits described in the tables above, from time to time, a new 

executive may be awarded a sign-on award to attract the executive to join Fannie Mae or to compensate him or her for 

compensation forfeited upon leaving a prior employer. Mr. Brooks was awarded a sign-on award when he joined Fannie Mae 

in November 2014, primarily to compensate him for forfeiting compensation upon leaving his prior employer. See footnote 3 

to the “Summary Compensation Table for 2015, 2014 and 2013” for more information regarding Mr. Brooks’ sign-on award.

Severance Benefits

We have not entered into agreements with any of our named executives that entitle the executive to severance benefits. Under 

the 2015 executive compensation program, a named executive is entitled to receive a specified portion of his or her earned 

but unpaid deferred salary if his or her employment is terminated for any reason other than for cause. See “Compensation 

Tables—Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control” for information on compensation that we may pay to a 

named executive in certain circumstances in the event the executive’s employment is terminated. 
170

Determination of 2015 Compensation

Summary of 2015 Compensation Actions

The table below displays the 2015 base salary and compensation targets for each of our named executives. Each of our named 

executives will be paid 97% of his corporate performance-based at-risk deferred salary target and 100% of his individual 

performance-based at-risk deferred salary target for 2015. See “Assessment of Corporate Performance on 2015

Conservatorship Scorecard” for a discussion of the factors that determined the amount of corporate performance-based at-risk 

deferred salary paid. See “Assessment by Board of Directors of Company Performance” and “Assessment of 2015 Individual 

Performance” for discussions of the factors that determined the individual performance-based at-risk deferred salary paid. 

This table is presented on a different basis from, and is not intended to replace, the Summary Compensation Table required 

under applicable SEC rules, which is included below under “Compensation Tables—Summary Compensation Table for 2015, 

2014 and 2013.” 

Named Executive

2015 Base

Salary ($)

2015 Fixed

Deferred

Salary ($)

2015 Corporate

Performance-Based

At-Risk Deferred

Salary Target ($)

2015 Individual

Performance-Based

At-Risk Deferred

Salary Target ($) Total ($)

Timothy Mayopoulos(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 660,577 825,616 241,644 241,644 1,969,481

President and Chief Executive Officer

David Benson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 600,000 1,500,000 450,000 450,000 3,000,000

Executive Vice President and Chief

Financial Officer

Andrew Bon Salle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000 1,110,000 345,000 345,000 2,300,000

Executive Vice President—Single-Family

Business

Brian Brooks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 500,000 1,180,000 360,000 360,000 2,400,000

Executive Vice President, General Counsel

and Corporate Secretary

Jeffery Hayward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475,000 960,000 307,500 307,500 2,050,000

Executive Vice President and Head of

Multifamily

__________

(1) Amounts shown for Mr. Mayopoulos reflect that his direct compensation consisted solely of base salary at an annual rate of $600,000 

for the periods from January 1 to June 30, 2015 and from November 25 to December 31, 2015, while his direct compensation consisted 

of base salary at an annual rate of $750,000, fixed deferred salary at an annual rate of $2,050,000, and at-risk deferred salary with an 

annual target amount of $1,200,000 for the period from July 1, 2015 to November 24, 2015. See “Chief Executive Officer 

Compensation and 2015 Executive Compensation Program—Compensation of Our Chief Executive Officer” for more information 

about Mr. Mayopoulos’s 2015 compensation. 

Assessment of Corporate Performance on 2015 Conservatorship Scorecard 

Overview

In January 2015, FHFA issued the 2015 conservatorship scorecard, a set of corporate performance objectives and related 

targets for 2015. The elements of the 2015 conservatorship scorecard are shown below under “FHFAAssessment.” The 2015

conservatorship scorecard provides the implementation roadmap for FHFA’s strategic plan for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. 

See “Business—Executive Summary—Helping to Build a Sustainable Housing Finance System” for a description of FHFA’s 

strategic goals for the Enterprises. FHFA developed these objectives and related targets with input from management. Half of 

each named executive’s 2015 at-risk deferred salary, or 15% of their overall 2015 total target direct compensation, was 

subject to reduction based on FHFA’s assessment of our performance against the 2015 conservatorship scorecard. 

As part of the 2015 conservatorship scorecard, FHFA determined that, for all scorecard items, our performance would be 

assessed based on the following criteria:
171

• The extent to which we conduct initiatives in a safe and sound manner consistent with FHFA’s expectations for all 

activities;

• The extent to which the outcomes of our activities support a competitive, resilient, and liquid secondary mortgage 

market to the benefit of homeowners and renters;

• The extent to which we conduct initiatives with the appropriate consideration for diversity and inclusion consistent 

with FHFA’s expectations for all activities;

• Cooperation and collaboration with FHFA, Common Securitization Solutions, LLC, Freddie Mac, the industry, and 

other stakeholders as appropriate; and

• The quality, thoroughness, creativity, effectiveness, and timeliness of our work products. 

FHFA Assessment

We provided updates to and maintained a dialogue with FHFA throughout 2015 on our performance against the 2015 

conservatorship scorecard, including our performance against FHFA’s expectations for diversity and inclusion. In early 2016, 

FHFA reviewed and assessed our performance against the 2015 conservatorship scorecard, with input from management and 

the Compensation Committee. FHFA determined that we had a successful year, completing or substantially completing all of 

the 2015 conservatorship scorecard objectives and, in some cases, earning additional scorecard credit for surpassing 

objectives. FHFA determined that the portion of 2015 at-risk deferred salary based on corporate-performance would be paid 

at 97% of target.

The table below sets forth the 2015 conservatorship scorecard and a summary of FHFA’s assessment of our achievement of 

the scorecard objectives and targets. 

Objectives and Weighting Summary of Performance

Maintain, in a safe and sound manner, credit availability and foreclosure prevention activities for new and

refinanced mortgages to foster liquid, efficient, competitive, and resilient national housing finance markets—40%

weight

The Enterprises are to:

Work to increase access to mortgage credit for creditworthy 

borrowers, consistent with the full extent of applicable credit 

requirements and risk-management practices:

• Finalize improvements to the Representations and Warranties 

Framework for originations.

• Continue to provide clarity regarding Enterprise expectations for 

servicer performance and remedies, where appropriate.

• Enhance servicer eligibility standards for Enterprise 

counterparties.

• Continue to encourage greater participation by small lenders, 

rural lenders, and state and local Housing Finance Agencies.

• Continue to assess impediments to access to credit. Explore the 

feasibility of:

Greater purchases of loans on manufactured housing secured 

by real estate; and

Improving the effectiveness of pre-purchase and early 

delinquency counseling through existing or new partnerships 

with housing counseling networks.

• Assess the feasibility of alternate credit score models and credit 

history in loan-decision models, including the operational and 

system implications.

• Prepare to implement Duty to Serve requirements upon 

publication of a final rule.

The objectives were completed except for one objective 

which was substantially completed. We continued our 

work in 2015 to increase access to mortgage credit for 

creditworthy borrowers, consistent with the full extent of 

our applicable credit requirements and risk management 

practice. Our work in this area during 2015 included the 

following: we developed and published guidance for 

lenders offering alternatives to repurchase in the event of 

underwriting defects, including the right to correct loan 

defects and to propose alternative remedies for our 

consideration; we and Freddie Mac issued new operational 

and financial eligibility requirements for single-family 

mortgage seller-servicer counterparties that became 

effective in 2015; and we engaged in outreach and training 

to encourage greater participation by small lenders, rural 

lenders and state and local Housing Finance Agency 

lenders. We also assessed the feasibility of alternate credit 

score models and credit history in loan-decision models.

During 2015 we introduced HomeReady, a new affordable 

lending product reflecting extensive feedback from lenders 

that, among other things, is designed to help multigenerational and extended households obtain 

homeownership. For more information on these activities, 

see “Serving Customer Needs and Improving Our Business 

Efficiency,” “Helping to Build a Sustainable Housing 

Finance System,” and “Single-Family Guaranty Book of 

Business—Providing Access to Credit Opportunities for 

Creditworthy Borrowers” in “Business—Executive 

Summary.”

One joint project relating to finalizing improvements to the 

Representations and Warranties Framework for originations 

was determined by FHFA to be “substantially complete,” 

meaning that minimal work remains to be completed, 

which was outside of Fannie Mae’s control. FHFA

acknowledged Fannie Mae’s initiative as instrumental in 

reaching agreement on the final program design.
172

Objectives and Weighting Summary of Performance

Effectively implement key loss mitigation activities, which include 

enabling borrowers to stay in their homes and avoiding 

foreclosure where possible:

• Pursue opportunities to encourage current HARP-eligible 

borrowers to take advantage of beneficial refinance opportunities.

• Develop and execute additional strategies to reduce the number of 

severely aged delinquent loans held by the Enterprises, considering 

tools such as loan modifications, short sales, deeds in lieu of 

foreclosure, and non-performing loan sales. The strategies should 

be informed by the Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative and have 

an emphasis on improving outcomes in hardest hit markets.

• Develop and execute additional strategies to reduce the number of 

vacant real estate owned (REO) properties held by the Enterprises, 

considering tools such as sales to non-profit organizations, repairs to 

REO properties before third-party sale, and demolition or possible 

donation of uninhabitable properties. The strategies should be 

informed by the Neighborhood Stabilization Initiative and have an 

emphasis on improving outcomes in hardest hit markets.

• Propose and implement solutions for HAMP borrowers facing rate 

resets.

• Continue to engage in efforts to reduce costs for Lender Force 

Placed Insurance.

The objectives were completed except for one objective 

which was substantially completed. Among other 

activities, in 2015, we conducted numerous extensive 

outreach to encourage borrowers to take advantage of 

HARP; we began assessing a high LTV ratio refinance 

program to replace HARP upon its expiration; and we 

completed our first three nonperforming loan sales. We also 

continued working in 2015 with FHFA, Freddie Mac and 

the National Community Stabilization Trust on a 

neighborhood stabilization initiative focused on disposing 

of REO properties in specified communities across the 

country where the number of REO properties remains 

elevated in ways that place a priority on stabilizing these 

communities. For more information on our nonperforming 

loan sales and neighborhood stabilization initiative, see 

“Business—Executive Summary—Helping to Build a 

Sustainable Housing Finance System.”

One joint project relating to HARP was determined by 

FHFA to be “substantially complete,” meaning that 

minimal work remains to be completed, which was outside 

of Fannie Mae’s control. FHFA acknowledged Fannie 

Mae’s rigorous approach to developing a recommendation 

and attempts to reach alignment on the project.

Maintain the dollar volume of new multifamily business for each 

Enterprise at $30 billion or below, excluding:

• Affordable housing loans, loans to small multifamily properties and 

loans to manufactured housing rental communities.

The objective was completed. However, FHFA

expressed disappointment with Fannie Mae that a 

better approach was not taken regarding the 

multifamily volume cap, which had to be adjusted 

during the course of the year with regard to excluded 

loan categories. We provided $28.6 billion in liquidity to 

the multifamily market in 2015, excluding volume 

associated with affordable housing loans, loans to small 

multifamily properties, and loans to manufactured housing 

rental communities and other excluded business segments, 

compared to the $30 billion cap. 

Reduce taxpayer risk through increasing the role of private capital in the mortgage market—30% weight

The Enterprises are to:

Single-Family:

• Fannie Mae will transact credit risk transfers on reference pools 

of single-family mortgages with an unpaid principal balance 

(UPB) of at least $150 billion. This UPB requirement will be 

reviewed periodically and adjusted as necessary to reflect market 

conditions

• In meeting the above targets, the Enterprises must each utilize at 

least two types of risk transfer structures.

The objectives were completed. In 2015, we transferred a 

significant portion of the mortgage credit risk on loans with 

an aggregate unpaid principal balance of $238 billion, well 

in excess of $150 billion, primarily through four CAS 

transactions and six CIRT transactions. See “MD&A—

Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—SingleFamily Mortgage Credit Risk Management—Transfer of 

Mortgage Credit Risk—Credit Risk-Sharing Transactions” 

for more information on these transactions. We received 

additional scorecard credit in completing this objective by 

executing an additional type of risk-transfer structure and 

by executing a transaction to transfer risk on adjustable-rate 

loans, which is a loan type that was not involved in a risktransfer transaction prior to 2015.

Multifamily:

• The Enterprises will determine the feasibility of transacting 

additional approved types of risk transfer structures to determine 

their: (a) market acceptance, (b) effectiveness at transferring risk, 

and (c) ability to expand the scale of the transfer initiatives. Based 

on the feasibility assessment, the Enterprises may execute additional 

risk transfers.

The objective was completed. In 2015 we continued to 

evaluate the feasibility and benefits of engaging in potential 

additional activities to transfer credit risk in our 

multifamily business.
173

Objectives and Weighting Summary of Performance

Retained Portfolio:

• The Enterprises will continue to implement their approved retained 

portfolio plans so that these plans meet, even under adverse 

conditions, the annual PSPA requirements and the $250 billion PSPA

cap by December 31, 2018.

Any sales should be commercially reasonable transactions that 

consider impacts to the market, borrowers, and neighborhood 

stability.

The objective was completed. In 2015 we continued to 

implement our retained portfolio plan, which we describe 

in “MD&A—Business Segment Results—The Capital 

Markets Group’s Mortgage Portfolio.” During 2015 we 

reduced our retained mortgage portfolio to $345.1 billion 

as of December 31, 2015, below the $359.3 billion cap 

requested by FHFA. In meeting this goal, we completed 

our first three nonperforming loan sales, selling 

nonperforming loans with an aggregate unpaid principal 

balance of $2.1 billion. We received additional scorecard 

credit in meeting this goal by successfully selling lessliquid assets, by selling more than one asset category, and 

because the aggregate unpaid principal balance of 

nonperforming loans we sold was over $2 billion. 

Implement private mortgage insurance eligibility requirements for

Enterprise counterparties when finalized.

The objective was completed. In April 2015, we 

announced and published updated eligibility standards for 

approved private mortgage insurers, which were further 

revised in June and December 2015. The new standards 

include enhanced financial requirements and are designed 

to ensure that mortgage insurers have sufficient liquid 

assets to pay all claims under a hypothetical future stress 

scenario. The new standards also set forth enhanced 

operational performance expectations and define remedial 

actions that may be imposed should an approved mortgage 

insurer fail to comply with the revised requirements. See 

“MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—

Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk Management—

Mortgage Insurers” for additional information on these new 

standards.

Build a new single-family securitization infrastructure for use by the Enterprises and adaptable for use by other

participants in the secondary market in the future—30% weight

The Enterprises are to:

Continue working with FHFA, each other, and Common 

Securitization Solutions, LLC to build and test the Common 

Securitization Platform (CSP) and to implement the changes 

necessary to integrate the Enterprises’ related systems and 

operations with the CSP.

The Enterprises’ work on CSP should incorporate the following design 

principles:

• Focus on the functions necessary for current Enterprise singlefamily securitization activities.

• Include the development of the operational and system 

capabilities necessary to issue a Single Security for the 

Enterprises.

• Allow for the integration of additional market participants in a 

future system.

The objective was completed. Fannie Mae continued to 

work with FHFA, Freddie Mac and CSS on building and 

testing the common securitization platform, as well as on 

implementing required changes to our systems and 

operations to integrate with the common securitization 

platform. See “Business—Housing Finance Reform—

Conservator Developments” for more information on the 

progress of the common securitization platform initiative.

Finalize the Single Security structure, including security features,

disclosure standards, and related requirements. Develop a plan to

implement the Single Security in the market.

The objective was completed. During 2015, we, FHFA

and Freddie Mac developed a plan to implement the single 

security. We also worked on a variety of issues relating to 

the implementation of the single security, including 

accounting matters, communication planning, industry 

outreach, risk assessments, privacy matters, legal and 

contractual issues and disclosures. FHFA has indicated that 

it expects both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to implement 

the single security on the common securitization platform 

in 2018. See “Business—Housing Finance Reform—

Conservator Developments” for more information on the 

single security and “Risk Factors” for a discussion of the 

risks to our business associated with a single security for 

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
174

Objectives and Weighting Summary of Performance

Provide active support for mortgage data standardization initiatives:

• Develop a plan for collecting the Uniform Closing Disclosure 

Dataset (UCD).

• Develop the Uniform Loan Application Dataset (ULAD).

The objectives were completed. We supported these 

mortgage data standardization initiatives in 2015, which are 

designed to improve the accuracy and quality of loan data 

through the mortgage lifecycle with the development and 

implementation of the uniform data standards for singlefamily mortgages. Our UCD collection activities included: 

developing and publishing a joint GSE industry 

announcement outlining the high-level timeline for the 

collection of the UCD; engaging in outreach at industry 

events, through webinars and through customer channels to 

assist with implementation preparedness; engaging with 

lenders and vendors on collection solution capabilities; 

completing a detailed implementation plan for UCD 

collection; and jointly launching the UCD Advisory Board 

with Freddie Mac. Our ULAD activities included 

completing a detailed internal implementation plan; 

substantial lender and borrower usability testing of the 

Uniform Residential Loan Application (URLA); engaging 

in industry outreach through webinars and presenting the 

revisions made to the URLA to obtain feedback and 

address concerns; and publishing an announcement on the 

ULAD collection.

Assessment by Board of Directors of Company Performance 

In March 2015, the Board of Directors established the 2015 Board of Directors’ goals, which are presented in the table below. 

Performance against these goals was a factor the Board of Directors considered in determining the individual performance of 

the named executives for purposes of the individual performance-based component of the named executives’ 2015 at-risk 

deferred salary. The Board of Directors did not assign any relative weight to the goals. 

Over the course of 2015, management periodically reviewed the 2015 Board of Directors’ goals and maintained a dialogue 

with the Board of Directors and appropriate committees of the Board of Directors as to management’s performance against 

these goals.

In late 2015 and early 2016, the Compensation Committee reviewed performance against the 2015 Board of Directors’ goals. 

In connection with the Compensation Committee’s review, management provided the Compensation Committee with a report 

assessing management’s performance against the goals, which was reviewed for accuracy by our Internal Audit group. The 

Compensation Committee considered management’s assessment of its performance against the goals and also discussed with 

the Chief Executive Officer the performance of the company and of each named executive (other than the Chief Executive 

Officer). 

The Compensation Committee noted in its review that management’s achievements with respect to the 2015 Board of 

Directors’ goals were accomplished in a complex political environment and a complicated and evolving operating 

environment, at a time when management was running the company’s business at a high level and was continuing to 

implement major organizational changes, its Vision and Values initiative, and the project to relocate the company’s 

headquarters and other offices. The Committee also favorably recognized management’s efforts to address any issues with the 

2015 Board of Directors’ goals on an ongoing basis with FHFA, the Board of Directors and appropriate committees of the 

Board of Directors, which allowed management to identify and resolve problems throughout the year. 

In January 2016, following its review of management’s and the company’s performance in 2015, and after discussions among 

all independent members of the Board of Directors, the Compensation Committee recommended and the Board of Directors 

determined that the individual component of the 2015 at-risk deferred salary should be funded at the 100% level as a result of 

management’s significant achievements. The Compensation Committee also provided FHFA with its assessment of 

management’s performance against the 2015 Board of Directors’ goals and its qualitative assessment of management’s 

performance against the 2015 conservatorship scorecard objectives. See “Assessment of 2015 Individual Performance” below 

for information regarding the review by the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors of the named executives’

individual performance in establishing the individual performance-based component of 2015 at-risk deferred salary.

The table below presents our 2015 Board of Directors’ goals, and the assessment of achievement against these goals. 
175

Board of Directors’ Goals Assessment of Performance

Sustain and grow partnerships with lenders and other key housing 

stakeholders. 

Achieved this goal. We took significant steps in 2015 to 

sustain and grow our partnerships with lenders and other key 

housing stakeholders, including developing a model to 

transform the way we work in an effort to more effectively 

and efficiently deliver what our customers need. We also 

increased our attention on understanding how our customers 

perceive us and what we can do to improve the customer 

experience.

Serve the market by providing products and services that help people 

own, rent, or stay in their homes. 

Achieved this goal. We served as a stable source of liquidity 

for purchases of homes and financing of multifamily rental 

housing, as well as for refinancing existing mortgages, 

providing approximately $516 billion in liquidity to the 

mortgage market in 2015 through our purchases of loans and 

guarantees of loans and securities. This liquidity enabled 

borrowers to complete approximately 1,188,000 singlefamily mortgage refinancings and approximately 954,000 

single-family home purchases, and provided financing for 

approximately 569,000 units of multifamily housing. We also 

worked to increase access to mortgage credit for creditworthy 

borrowers consistent with the full extent of our applicable 

credit requirements and risk management practices. Our 

acquisitions of loans through our suite of affordable product 

offerings significantly surpassed our goals. In 2015 we also 

developed and launched HomeReady, our new affordable 

lending product. Finally, we provided approximately 122,000 

loan workouts in 2015 to help homeowners stay in their 

homes or otherwise avoid foreclosure.

For more information on these activities, see “Contributions 

to the Housing and Mortgage Markets” and “Single-Family 

Guaranty Book of Business—Providing Access to Credit 

Opportunities for Creditworthy Borrowers” in “Business—

Executive Summary.”

Build sustainable financial performance. Achieved this goal. We recognized net income of $11.0 

billion in 2015. We acquired single-family loans with strong 

credit profiles. See “Business—Executive Summary—

Single-Family Guaranty Book of Business” for information 

on the credit performance, credit profile, and average charged 

guaranty fee on our 2015 acquisitions. Our multifamily new 

business volume also reflected loans with a solid credit 

profile. 

We are also working on a multi-year effort to improve our 

business efficiency and agility through simplification of our 

business processes and enhancements to our infrastructure. 

Our net worth has been positive at the end of each quarter of 

2015 and, accordingly, Fannie Mae has not drawn funds from 

Treasury for 2015.

Maintain a disciplined risk, control, and compliance environment. Achieved this goal. We maintained a disciplined risk, 

control, and compliance environment in 2015, managing our 

business within established risk limits, with timely 

remediation of instances where limits were exceeded and 

with the Board of Directors’ approval for exceptions. We also 

resolved all medium and high priority internal audit issues 

and risk and control matters identified by FHFA within 

established timeframes or mutually acceptable extensions.
176

Board of Directors’ Goals Assessment of Performance

Improve the company’s capabilities, infrastructure, and efficiency to

prepare for a more competitive future.

Achieved this goal. We accomplished significant progress in 

2015 toward successfully completing a number of top-tier, 

enterprise-level strategic projects to enhance our 

infrastructure or efficiency, with safety and soundness in 

mind. 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. Our strategic projects 

include projects to make required changes to our systems and 

operations to integrate with the CSP, to increase our 

operational efficiencies while improving our customers’

experience in transacting business with us, and to implement 

a new third-party mortgage securities trading system and a 

new third-party securities accounting system and data 

repository, which simplified and integrated our processing of 

and accounting for mortgage securities transactions. 

We also made substantial progress on our workplace strategy 

initiative in anticipation of our move in a couple of years to 

new headquarters in Washington, DC.

Develop our workforce so that it is ready to meet the business

challenges of today and into the future.

Achieved this goal. We took several important steps this year 

to prepare employees to meet the business challenges of 

today and the future, focusing particularly on recruiting, 

training and development; and succession planning. We also 

developed a corporate vision in 2015, to be America’s most 

valued housing partner, and rolled out values to serve as 

guiding principles, as well as an articulation of specific 

employee behaviors demonstrating the values. The vision, 

values and supporting behaviors were integrated into 

recruitment, performance management, and employee 

recognition programs to help embed them into the company’s 

culture. In addition, we launched several initiatives in support 

of maintaining a diverse and inclusive culture.

Assessment of 2015 Individual Performance

Overview. Half of each named executives’ 2015 at-risk deferred salary was subject to reduction based on individual 

performance in 2015. 

The Board of Directors assessed the Chief Executive Officer’s performance with input from the Compensation Committee 

and from the Chief Executive Officer regarding his accomplishments. In approving compensation for each named executive, 

the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors considered the Chief Executive Officer’s recommendation and 

assessment of each named executive’s performance and contribution to the company’s achievement of the 2015

conservatorship goals and the 2015 Board of Directors’ goals. Each of our named executives will be paid 100% of his 

individual performance-based at-risk deferred salary target for 2015 presented in the table above in “Summary of 2015

Compensation Actions.” 

Timothy Mayopoulos, President and Chief Executive Officer. In evaluating Mr. Mayopoulos’s performance and determining 

his individual performance-based at-risk deferred salary for the period in 2015 during which he earned at-risk deferred salary, 

the Board of Directors acknowledged Mr. Mayopoulos’s strong leadership in 2015 and his significant contributions to Fannie 

Mae’s numerous accomplishments. For example, Fannie Mae completed or substantially completed all of its 2015

conservatorship scorecard objectives and all of the 2015 Board of Directors’ goals, in a manner that the Board of Directors 

viewed as responsible, timely and of high quality. This was accomplished in a complicated and evolving operating 

environment, at a time when management was continuing to implement major organizational changes, its vision and values 

initiative, and the project to relocate the company’s headquarters and other offices, and running Fannie Mae’s business at a 

high level. Fannie Mae was profitable in 2015, with net income of $11.0 billion, while continuing to acquire loans with a 

strong credit profile and increasing access to affordable mortgage credit for creditworthy borrowers. Fannie Mae made 

substantial progress on initiatives to help prepare its business and infrastructure for changes in the U.S. housing finance 

system and to help ensure its safety and soundness during conservatorship. Mr. Mayopoulos has continued to develop a 

highly skilled and cohesive management team in order to meet the many goals and challenges set out for the company. Under 

Mr. Mayopoulos’s leadership, in 2015 Fannie Mae developed a corporate vision to be America’s most valued housing partner 

and values to serve as guiding principles, as well as an articulation of specific employee behaviors demonstrating the values. 

The vision, values and supporting behaviors were integrated into recruitment, performance management, and employee 

recognition programs to help embed them into the company’s culture. Fannie Mae also developed a long-term strategic plan, 

redesigned its management-level corporate governance structure, further developed its credit risk transfer capabilities and 
177

strengthened its role as a thought leader with the launch of the Home Purchase Sentiment Index, or HPSI, a single, predictive 

indicator of consumer sentiment devoted exclusively to housing. 

David Benson, Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer. In recommending and determining Mr. Benson’s 

individual performance-based at-risk deferred salary, the Chief Executive Officer, the Compensation Committee and the 

Board of Directors considered Mr. Benson’s many achievements in 2015, a number of which provided critical support to 

Fannie Mae’s achievement of the 2015 conservatorship scorecard and the 2015 Board of Directors’ goals. As Chief Financial 

Officer, Mr. Benson was instrumental in the development of Fannie Mae’s long-term strategic plan; executed a key initiative 

supporting our multi-year effort to improve our business efficiency and agility through simplification of our business 

processes; helped ensure administrative expenses remained within plan; managed the risk of our retained mortgage portfolio; 

completed plans for reducing our retained mortgage portfolio in accordance with the 2015 conservatorship scorecard, 

including obtaining additional scorecard credit in doing so; met ambitious goals to reduce balances of illiquid assets we hold; 

and helped establish a successful program to sell nonperforming loans. In addition, Mr. Benson continued to provide 

leadership in Fannie Mae’s interactions with FHFA, Treasury and with various persons and organizations in the industry.

Andrew Bon Salle, Executive Vice President-Single-Family Business. In recommending and determining Mr. Bon Salle’s 

individual performance-based at-risk deferred salary, the Chief Executive Officer, the Compensation Committee and the 

Board of Directors considered Mr. Bon Salle’s many achievements in 2015 and, in particular, the significant initiatives he led 

related to the 2015 conservatorship scorecard and the 2015 Board of Directors’ goals. Mr. Bon Salle’s accomplishments 

include developing the single-family component of Fannie Mae’s long-term strategic plan; sustaining and growing 

partnerships with lenders and other key housing stakeholders; implementing plans for integrating Fannie Mae’s systems with 

the common securitization platform and improving Fannie Mae’s front-end business capabilities; supporting our initiative to 

simplify and integrate our processing of and accounting for mortgage securities transactions; building sustainable financial 

performance; managing Fannie Mae’s single-family business within risk limits; improving the representation and warranty 

framework; exceeding goals to transfer credit risk, including through multiple transaction types and covering different loan 

types; and launching Collateral Underwriter and our new loan delivery platform for lenders. 

Brian Brooks, Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary. In recommending and determining Mr. 

Brooks’ individual performance-based at-risk deferred salary, the Chief Executive Officer, the Compensation Committee and 

the Board of Directors considered Mr. Brooks’ many achievements in 2015. These achievements include coordinating an 

enterprise cybersecurity program; redesigning Fannie Mae’s management-level corporate governance structure; working with 

other divisions across the company to address troubled counterparty issues; building strong relationships with his 

counterparts throughout the industry; supporting Fannie Mae’s multi-year effort to improve business efficiency and agility 

through simplification of our business processes; and launching a program to support development of legal department 

employees to meet our current and future business challenges. 

Jeffery Hayward, Executive Vice President and Head of Multifamily. In recommending and determining Mr. Hayward’s 

individual performance-based at-risk deferred salary, the Chief Executive Officer, the Compensation Committee and the 

Board of Directors considered Mr. Hayward’s many achievements in 2015. These achievements include his leadership of our 

efforts to increase access to mortgage credit for creditworthy borrowers and to accomplish the multifamily goals in the 2015

conservatorship scorecard and the 2015 Board of Directors’ goals; executing on our initiative to prepare our multifamily 

business and infrastructure for the future, particularly by deploying DUS GatewayTM, a new technology system for lenders 

and Fannie Mae to manage multifamily loan sourcing and acquisition; helping to initiate the first multifamily customer 

loyalty survey for lenders and borrowers; evaluating the feasibility and benefits of potentially engaging in activities to 

transfer credit risk in our multifamily business; developing the multifamily component of Fannie Mae’s long-term strategic 

plan; and simplifying multifamily business processes.

Other Executive Compensation Considerations 

Role of Compensation Consultants 

The Compensation Committee’s independent compensation consultant is Frederic W. Cook & Co., Inc. (“FW Cook”). 

Management’s outside compensation consultant is McLagan. 

For 2015, McLagan advised management and the Compensation Committee on various compensation and human resources 

matters, including:

• providing guidance and feedback on the company’s 2015 executive compensation program;

• defining the protocol regarding market peer group development and benchmarking for executives;

• advising on market trends, competitive pay levels and various compensation proposals for new hires and 

promotions; and
178

• providing market compensation data for senior management positions, including the named executives’ positions.

For 2015, FW Cook advised the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors on various executive compensation 

matters, including:

• assisting the Compensation Committee in its discussions with FHFA on the company’s 2015 executive 

compensation program;

• preparing an analysis of compensation for executives in positions comparable to Fannie Mae executive positions at 

companies in our primary comparator group, based on information in proxy statements and other reports filed by 

those companies with the SEC;

• assisting the Compensation Committee in developing a proposal for FHFA review and consideration on executive 

compensation for the position of Fannie Mae’s chief executive officer;

• reviewing McLagan’s analysis of market compensation data for select senior management positions; 

• reviewing various management proposals relating to compensation structures and levels, and for new hires and 

promotions;

• reviewing the company’s risk assessment of its 2015 compensation program;

• assisting the Compensation Committee in its evaluation of the company’s performance against the 2015

conservatorship scorecard and communicating its views to FHFA;

• assisting the Compensation Committee in its evaluation of the company’s performance against the 2015 Board of 

Directors’ goals; 

• facilitating the Compensation Committee’s evaluation of the Company’s Chief Executive Officer’s performance in 

2015;

• informing the Compensation Committee of regulatory updates and market trends in compensation and benefits; and

• assisting with the preparation of executive compensation disclosure in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

Compensation Consultant Independence Assessment

The Compensation Committee assessed the independence of FW Cook and McLagan. Based on its assessments, the 

Compensation Committee determined that FW Cook is independent from management. FW Cook’s work for the 

Compensation Committee raises no conflicts of interest. 

Because McLagan was retained by, and provides services to management, it is not an independent adviser. McLagan’s work 

raises no material conflicts of interest, and any conflict of interest raised by the fact that McLagan is retained by and provides 

services to management as well as to the Compensation Committee is addressed by the fact that the Compensation 

Committee also receives the advice of, and has access to, FW Cook as its independent compensation consultant.

Comparator Group and Role of Benchmark Data

Our Compensation Committee typically requests benchmark compensation data for our senior executives on an annual basis 

to assess the compensation of the company’s senior executives as compared to a group of similar firms. Finding comparable 

firms for purposes of benchmarking executive compensation is challenging due to our unique business, structure and mission, 

and the large size of our book of business compared to other financial services firms. The only directly comparable firm to us 

is Freddie Mac. At FHFA’s request, we and Freddie Mac use the same comparator group of companies for benchmarking 

executive compensation to provide consistency in the market data used for compensation decisions. Factors relevant to the 

selection of companies for our comparator group included their status as U.S. public companies, the industry in which they 

operate (each is a commercial bank, insurance company, finance lessor or government-sponsored enterprise) and their size (in 

terms of total revenues) relative to the size of Fannie Mae. Our primary comparator group, which was established by the 

Compensation Committee in 2012, consists of the following 17 companies:
179

• Allstate Corporation • Fifth Third Bancorp • Prudential Financial, Inc.

• Ally Financial Inc. • Freddie Mac • Regions Financial Corporation

• American International Group Inc. • Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. • State Street Corporation

• Bank of New York Mellon Corporation • MetLife, Inc. • SunTrust Banks, Inc.

• BB&T Corporation • Northern Trust Corporation • U.S. Bancorp 

• Capital One Financial Corporation • PNC Financial Services Group, Inc.

The Compensation Committee follows a bifurcated approach to benchmarking senior executive positions. Under this 

approach, while the comparator group noted above is the primary group of companies used for benchmarking senior 

management pay levels, for certain senior management roles that are more comparable in function and/or scope to roles at 

firms outside this comparator group, the Compensation Committee considers pay levels against a broader group of 

companies. The company believes this more comprehensive approach results in better market data. 

The named executives’ compensation was compared to compensation at other companies as follows: 

• The compensation of our Chief Executive Officer (Mr. Mayopoulos), our Chief Financial Officer (Mr. Benson) and 

our Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary (Mr. Brooks) was benchmarked against our 

primary comparator group identified above;

• The compensation of our Executive Vice President—Single-Family Business (Mr. Bon Salle) was benchmarked 

against our primary comparator group as well as a group of large banks consisting of Bank of America Corporation, 

Citigroup Inc., JPMorgan Chase & Co., Wells Fargo & Company and other specialty mortgage lending 

organizations, to the extent those firms have executives in comparable positions; and

• The compensation of our Executive Vice President—Multifamily (Mr. Hayward) was benchmarked against our 

primary comparator group as well as large banks consisting of Bank of America Corporation, JPMorgan Chase & 

Co., Wells Fargo & Company and other specialty commercial real estate organizations, to the extent those firms 

have executives in comparable positions.

In late 2015, FW Cook provided the Compensation Committee with a comparison of our named executives’ total target direct 

compensation for 2015 with compensation for comparable positions at companies in our primary comparator group, based on 

FW Cook’s analysis of proxy statements and other SEC filings. McLagan also provided the Compensation Committee with 

updated benchmarking data for our named executives other than our Chief Executive Officer and our Chief Financial Officer. 

The McLagan data compared the named executives’ total direct compensation for 2015 with the 25th percentile, 50th 

percentile and 75th percentile of 2014 direct compensation for comparable positions in the applicable comparator group of 

companies based on McLagan’s proprietary database. Members of the Compensation Committee reviewed and discussed this 

data in late 2015. Our named executives’ total target direct compensation under the 2015 executive compensation program in 

aggregate was substantially below the market median for comparable firms.

Compensation Recoupment Policy

Our executive officers’ compensation (other than executive officers serving on an interim basis) is subject to the following 

forfeiture and repayment provisions, also known as “clawback” provisions:

• Materially Inaccurate Information. If an executive officer has been granted deferred salary or incentive payments 

(including performance-based compensation) based on materially inaccurate financial statements or any other 

materially inaccurate performance metric criteria, he or she will forfeit or must repay amounts granted in excess of the 

amounts the Board of Directors determines would likely have been granted using accurate metrics.

• Termination for Cause. If we terminate an executive officer’s employment for cause, he or she will immediately forfeit 

all deferred salary and any incentive payments that have not yet been paid. We may terminate an executive officer’s 

employment for cause if we determine that the officer has: (a) materially harmed the company by, in connection with 

the officer’s performance of his or her duties for the company, engaging in gross misconduct or performing his or her 

duties in a grossly negligent manner, or (b) been convicted of, or pleaded nolo contendere with respect to, a felony.

• Subsequent Determination of Cause. If an executive officer’s employment was not terminated for cause, but the Board 

of Directors later determines, within a specified period of time, that he or she could have been terminated for cause and 
180

that the officer’s actions materially harmed the business or reputation of the company, the officer will forfeit or must 

repay, as the case may be, deferred salary and any incentive payments received by the officer to the extent the Board of 

Directors deems appropriate under the circumstances. The Board of Directors may require the forfeiture or repayment 

of all deferred salary and any incentive payments so that the officer is in the same economic position as if he or she had 

been terminated for cause as of the date of termination of his or her employment.

• Effect of Willful Misconduct. If an executive officer’s employment: (a) is terminated for cause (or the Board of 

Directors later determines that cause for termination existed) due to either (i) willful misconduct by the officer in 

connection with his or her performance of his or her duties for the company or (ii) the officer has been convicted of, or 

pleaded nolo contendere with respect to, a felony consisting of an act of willful misconduct in the performance of his or 

her duties for the company and (b) in the determination of the Board of Directors, this has materially harmed the 

business or reputation of the company, then, to the extent the Board of Directors deems it appropriate under the 

circumstances, in addition to the forfeiture or repayment of deferred salary and any incentive payments described 

above, the executive officer will also forfeit or must repay, as the case may be, deferred salary and annual incentives or 

long-term awards paid to him or her in the two-year period prior to the date of termination of his or her employment or 

payable to him or her in the future. Misconduct is not considered willful unless it is done or omitted to be done by the 

officer in bad faith or without reasonable belief that his or her action or omission was in the best interest of the 

company.

Certain of the incentive-based compensation for our Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer also may be subject 

to a requirement that they be reimbursed to the company in the event that Section 304 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 

applies to that compensation.

Stock Ownership and Hedging Policies

We ceased paying new stock-based compensation to our executives after entering into conservatorship in September 2008. In 

2009, our Board of Directors eliminated our stock ownership requirements. All employees, including our named executives, 

are prohibited from transacting in derivative securities related to our securities, including options, puts and calls, other than 

pursuant to our stock-based benefit plans.

Tax Deductibility of our Compensation Expenses

Subject to certain exceptions, Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code imposes a $1 million limit on the amount that a 

company may annually deduct for compensation to its Chief Executive Officer and certain other named executives, unless, 

among other things, the compensation is “performance-based,” as defined in Section 162(m), and provided under a plan that 

has been approved by the shareholders. Compensation the company pays the named executives does not qualify as 

performance-based compensation under Section 162(m). We have not adopted a policy requiring all compensation to be 

deductible under Section 162(m). This approach allows us flexibility in light of the conservatorship. 

COMPENSATION COMMITTEE REPORT

The Compensation Committee of the Board of Directors of Fannie Mae has reviewed and discussed the Compensation 

Discussion and Analysis included in this Form 10-K with management. Based on such review and discussions, the 

Compensation Committee has recommended to the Board of Directors that the Compensation Discussion and Analysis be 

included in this Form 10-K.

Compensation Committee:

Brenda J. Gaines, Chair

Diane C. Nordin 

Jonathan Plutzik

David H. Sidwell

COMPENSATION RISK ASSESSMENT

Our Enterprise Risk Management division conducted a risk assessment of our 2015 employee compensation policies and 

practices. In conducting this risk assessment, the division reviewed, among other things, our performance goals, pay mix and 

compensation structure, variable compensation plans applicable to some employees who support our credit portfolio 
181

management division, our severance arrangements, including a voluntary exit program offered during 2015 to certain 

employees meeting age and service requirements, our compensation recoupment policy, oversight of aspects of our 

compensation by FHFA, the Compensation Committee and the Board of Directors, our corporate culture with regard to risk, 

and our performance appraisal management process. The division considered the impact of the Equity in Government 

Compensation Act of 2015, which reduced annual direct compensation for our Chief Executive Officer to $600,000, 

consisting solely of base salary, as we describe in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Chief Executive Officer 

Compensation and 2015 Executive Compensation Program—Compensation for our Chief Executive Officer.” The division 

also assessed whether policies, procedures or other mitigating controls existed that would reduce the opportunity for 

excessive or inappropriate risk-taking within our compensation policies and practices. Our Chief Risk Officer discussed the 

risk assessment of the company’s 2015 compensation policies and practices with the Compensation Committee of the Board 

of Directors.

Based on the risk assessment, management concluded that our 2015 employee compensation policies and practices do not 

create risks that are reasonably likely to have a material adverse effect on the company. Several factors contributed to this 

conclusion, including:

• Payment of performance-based compensation for achievement of the 2015 conservatorship scorecard objectives and the 

2015 Board of Directors’ goals is based on the achievement of goals that we have concluded do not encourage 

unnecessary or excessive risk-taking. 

• Our extensive performance appraisal process is designed to ensure achievement of goals without encouraging 

executives or employees to take excessive risks.

• Deferred salary for our SEC executive officers is subject to the terms of the recoupment policy.

However, management concluded in its risk assessment that restoration of the $600,000 cap on our Chief Executive Officer 

compensation under the Equity in Government Compensation Act of 2015 could negatively affect our ability to retain our 

Chief Executive Officer and engage in effective succession planning for this critical role and that the constraints on our 

compensation could adversely affect our ability to attract qualified candidates given the uncertainty around Chief Executive 

Officer compensation. 

As discussed in “Risk Factors,” the conservatorship, the uncertainty of our future, limitations on our compensation and 

negative publicity concerning the GSEs materially increase the human capital risk to the company. 
182

COMPENSATION TABLES

Summary Compensation Table for 2015, 2014 and 2013

The following table shows summary compensation information for 2015, 2014 and 2013 for the named executives. For more 

information on the compensation reflected in this table, see the footnotes following the table. 

Salary

($)

Name and

Principal Position Year

Base

Salary 

($)(1)

Fixed 

Deferred

Salary

(ServiceBased)(2)Bonus

($)(3)

Non-Equity

Incentive

Plan

Compensation

($)(4)

Change in

Pension

Value and

Nonqualified

Deferred

Compensation 

Earnings

($)(5)

All Other

Compensation 

($)(6)

Total

($)

Timothy Mayopoulos(7). . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2015 660,577 825,616 — 476,634 — 53,878 2,016,705

President and Chief 2014 600,000 — — — — 48,000 648,000

Executive Officer 2013 599,615 — — — — 87,969 687,584

David Benson. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2015 600,000 1,500,000 — 887,608 20,219 147,875 3,155,702

Executive Vice President 2014 600,000 1,500,000 — 900,585 210,000 143,164 3,353,749

and Chief Financial 2013 574,231 1,436,462 — 818,170 332,926 66,825 3,228,614

Officer

Andrew Bon Salle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2015 500,000 1,110,000 — 680,500 — 79,450 2,369,950

Executive Vice President 2014 475,769 860,385 — 572,680 209,000 74,982 2,192,816

—Single-Family Business

Brian Brooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2015 500,000 1,180,000 625,000 710,087 — 41,475 3,056,562

Executive Vice President

General Counsel and

Corporate Secretary

Jeffery Hayward. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2015 475,000 960,000 — 606,532 119,932 105,969 2,267,433

Executive Vice President

and Head of Multifamily

__________

(1) Amounts shown in this sub-column consist of base salary paid during the year on a bi-weekly basis. 

(2) Amounts shown in this sub-column for 2015 consist of the fixed, service-based portion of deferred salary. As described in footnote 4 

below, the remaining portion of 2015 deferred salary is included in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column because it is 

performance-based. Deferred salary shown for 2015 generally will be paid in four equal installments in March, June, September and 

December 2016. Because Mr. Mayopoulos earned deferred salary only during the period from July 2015 to late November 2015, his 

deferred salary will be paid in September and December 2016. Beginning in 2014, deferred salary accrues interest at one-half of the 

one-year Treasury Bill rate in effect on the last business day immediately preceding the year in which the deferred salary is earned. For 

deferred salary earned in 2015, this rate is 0.125% per year. Interest on the named executives’ 2014 and 2015 fixed deferred salary is 

shown in the “All Other Compensation” column. Deferred salary shown for 2014 was paid to our named executives during 2015. More 

information about 2015 deferred salary is presented above in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Chief Executive Officer 

Compensation and 2015 Executive Compensation Program—Elements of 2015 Executive Compensation Program—Direct 

Compensation.” 

(3) Amounts shown in this column consist of installments of a sign-on award paid to Mr. Brooks in 2015. Mr. Brooks was granted a signon award of $1,250,000 in 2014 when he joined Fannie Mae, of which the final $625,000 was paid in two equal installments during 

2015. Under its terms, Mr. Brooks’ sign-on award is subject to repayment if he leaves Fannie Mae within 24 months of joining the 

company as follows: the award became 50% vested in November 2015, after Mr. Brooks had been with the company for 12 months, 

and vests with respect to an additional 25% in May 2016, and the final 25% in November 2016.

(4) Amounts shown in this column consist of the at-risk, performance-based portion of deferred salary earned during the year and, 

beginning in 2014, interest payable on that deferred salary. Half of at-risk deferred salary for each named executive was subject to 

reduction based on corporate performance for the year and the remaining half was subject to reduction based on individual performance 

for the year. The table below provides more detail on the 2015 at-risk deferred salary awarded to our named executives. As described in 

“Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Chief Executive Officer Compensation and 2015 Executive Compensation Program—

Compensation of our Chief Executive Officer,” Mr. Mayopoulos earned deferred salary for only a portion of 2015.
183

Name

2015

Corporate

PerformanceBased At-Risk

Deferred

Salary ($)

2015

Individual

PerformanceBased At-Risk

Deferred

Salary ($)

Interest

Payable on

2015 At-Risk

Deferred

Salary ($) Total ($)

Timothy Mayopoulos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 234,395 241,644 595 476,634

David Benson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436,500 450,000 1,108 887,608

Andrew Bon Salle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334,650 345,000 850 680,500

Brian Brooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 349,200 360,000 887 710,087

Jeffery Hayward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 298,275 307,500 757 606,532

(5) None of our named executives received above-market or preferential earnings on nonqualified deferred compensation. 

Pursuant to a directive from FHFA, we terminated our defined benefit pension plans for employees as of December 31, 2013, and we 

distributed all benefits remaining in the plans in 2015. Messrs. Benson, Bon Salle and Hayward were entitled to receive benefits under 

our tax-qualified defined benefit pension plan, which we refer to as the “Retirement Plan,” as well as under two non-tax-qualified 

supplemental plans. Messrs. Mayopoulos and Brooks joined the company after 2007 and were therefore not eligible to participate in 

Fannie Mae’s defined benefit pension plans. 

The amounts reported for 2015 represent the net change in the value of pension benefits from December 31, 2014 through the time 

Fannie Mae distributed the benefits in 2015, except that, in accordance with SEC rules, no amount is shown for Mr. Bon Salle because 

the net change in his pension benefits during that time period was negative, as shown in the table below. Mr. Benson and Mr. Bon Salle 

both experienced a decrease in the value of their benefits under the Retirement Plan during that period because of the difference 

between the assumptions we used in calculating their benefits as of December 31, 2014 and the actual factors that determined the value 

of their benefits when actually paid out. In calculating the value of their pension benefits as of December 31, 2014, consistent with our 

assumptions used for financial reporting purposes, we assumed that each named executive would elect to receive 80% of his benefits 

under the Retirement Plan in the form of a lump sum payment and 20% in the form of an annuity. Under the terms of the Retirement 

Plan, each executive could elect to receive all of his benefits under that plan either in a lump sum or in an annuity, but not in a 

combination of both. Payouts in the form of annuities resulted in higher costs to us to cover the premiums paid to the annuity provider 

versus the cost of lump sum payouts. As a result, Mr. Benson’s and Mr. Bon Salle’s calculated pension benefits under the Retirement 

Plan (but not the supplemental plans) decreased in value as a result of their election to receive lump sum payouts, while Mr. Hayward’s 

increased as a result of his election to receive an annuity. The table below shows more detail regarding the change in pension value for 

2015. 

Name Interest cost ($)

Change from actuarial assumptions to

actual outcome (primarily relating to

whether the named executive elected to

receive a lump sum or an annuity from

the Retirement Plan) ($) Total ($)

David Benson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36,000 (15,781) 20,219

Andrew Bon Salle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34,000 (38,185) (4,185)

Jeffery Hayward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67,000 52,932 119,932

(6) The table below shows more information about the amounts reported for 2015 in the “All Other Compensation” column, which consist 

of (1) company contributions under our Retirement Savings Plan (401(k) Plan); (2) company credits to our Supplemental Retirement 

Savings Plan; (3) matching charitable contributions under our matching charitable gifts program; and (4) interest payable on 2015 fixed 

deferred salary.
184

Name

Company

Contributions

to

Retirement

Savings

(401(k)) Plan 

($)

Company

Credits to

Supplemental

Retirement

Savings

Plan ($)

Charitable

Award

Programs 

($)

Interest

Payable on

2015 Fixed

Deferred

Salary ($) Total ($)

Timothy Mayopoulos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,200 31,646 — 1,032 53,878

David Benson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,800 112,200 2,000 1,875 147,875

Andrew Bon Salle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,200 56,862 — 1,388 79,450

Brian Brooks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,200 18,800 — 1,475 41,475

Jeffery Hayward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,800 72,969 — 1,200 105,969

 In accordance with SEC rules, amounts shown under “All Other Compensation” for 2015 do not include perquisites or personal benefits 

for a named executive that, in the aggregate, amount to less than $10,000. In aggregate, the perquisites we provided to all of our named 

executives in 2015 did not exceed $1,000.

 See “Pension Benefits” for the vesting provisions for company contributions to the Retirement Savings Plan and “Nonqualified 

Deferred Compensation” for the vesting provisions for company credits to the Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan. As discussed 

below in “Pension Benefits—Termination of Defined Benefit Pension Plans,” in connection with the termination of our defined benefit 

pension plan, we are making additional contributions to the Retirement Savings Plan and the Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan for 

employees close to retirement who satisfied a rule of 65. Amounts shown for Mr. Benson and Mr. Hayward reflect these additional 

contributions.

 Amounts shown in the “Charitable Award Programs” column reflect gifts we made on behalf of our named executives under our 

matching charitable gifts program, under which gifts made by our employees and directors to Section 501(c)(3) charities were matched, 

up to an aggregate total of $2,500 for the 2015 calendar year.

(7) Amounts shown for 2015 for Mr. Mayopoulos reflect that his direct compensation consisted solely of base salary at an annual rate of 

$600,000 for the periods from January 1 to June 30, 2015 and from November 25 to December 31, 2015, while his direct compensation 

consisted of base salary at an annual rate of $750,000, fixed deferred salary at an annual rate of $2,050,000, and at-risk deferred salary 

with an annual target amount of $1,200,000 for the period from July 1, 2015 to November 24, 2015. See “Compensation Discussion 

and Analysis—Chief Executive Officer Compensation and 2015 Executive Compensation Program—Compensation of Our Chief 

Executive Officer” for more information about Mr. Mayopoulos’s 2015 compensation.
185

Grants of Plan-Based Awards in 2015

The following table shows the at-risk grants of deferred salary made to the named executives during 2015. The terms of 2015

deferred salary are described in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Chief Executive Officer Compensation and 2015

Executive Compensation Program—Elements of 2015 Executive Compensation Program—Direct Compensation.” Deferred 

salary amounts shown represent only the at-risk, performance-based portion of the named executives’ 2015 deferred salary. 

Estimated Future Payouts Under

Non-Equity Incentive Plan Awards ($)(1)

Name Award Type Threshold Target Maximum

Timothy Mayopoulos(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . At-risk deferred salary—Corporate — 241,644 241,644

At-risk deferred salary—Individual — 241,644 241,644

Total at-risk deferred salary — 483,288 483,288

David Benson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . At-risk deferred salary—Corporate — 450,000 450,000

At-risk deferred salary—Individual — 450,000 450,000

Total at-risk deferred salary — 900,000 900,000

Andrew Bon Salle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . At-risk deferred salary—Corporate — 345,000 345,000

At-risk deferred salary—Individual — 345,000 345,000

Total at-risk deferred salary — 690,000 690,000

Brian Brooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . At-risk deferred salary—Corporate — 360,000 360,000

At-risk deferred salary—Individual — 360,000 360,000

Total at-risk deferred salary — 720,000 720,000

Jeffery Hayward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . At-risk deferred salary—Corporate — 307,500 307,500

At-risk deferred salary—Individual — 307,500 307,500

Total at-risk deferred salary — 615,000 615,000

__________

(1) Amounts shown are the target amounts of the at-risk, performance-based portion of the named executives’ 2015 deferred salary. Half of 

2015 at-risk deferred salary was subject to reduction based on corporate performance against the 2015 conservatorship scorecard, as 

determined by FHFA, and half was subject to reduction based on individual performance in 2015, taking into account corporate 

performance against the 2015 Board of Directors’ goals, as determined by the Board of Directors with FHFA’s review. No amounts are 

shown in the “Threshold” column because deferred salary does not specify a threshold payout amount. The amounts shown in the 

“Maximum” column are the same as the amounts shown in the “Target” column because 2015 deferred salary is only subject to 

reduction; amounts higher than the target amount cannot be awarded. The actual amounts of the at-risk portion of 2015 deferred salary 

that will be paid to the named executives for 2015 performance are included in the “Non-Equity Incentive Plan Compensation” column 

of the “Summary Compensation Table for 2015, 2014 and 2013” and explained in footnote 4 to that table. 

(2) As described in “Compensation Discussion and Analysis—Chief Executive Officer Compensation and 2015 Executive Compensation 

Program—Compensation of our Chief Executive Officer,” Mr. Mayopoulos earned deferred salary for only a portion of 2015.

Pension Benefits 

Termination of Defined Benefit Pension Plans. 

In 2013, pursuant to a directive from FHFA, our Board of Directors approved the termination of our qualified pension plan, 

The Federal National Mortgage Association Retirement Plan for Employees Not Covered Under Civil Service Retirement 

Law, referred to as the “Retirement Plan,” as well as the Supplemental Pension Plan and the 2003 Supplemental Pension 

Plan, referred to collectively as the “Supplemental Plans,” in each case effective December 31, 2013. These terminations 

follow the cessation (or “freeze”) of benefit accruals under all of the plans in 2008 for all employees who did not then satisfy 

a rule of 45 (that is, the sum of their age plus years of service was 45 or greater) and in June 2013 for all employees who 

continued to accrue benefits after the initial freeze in 2008. Mr. Benson, Mr. Bon Salle and Mr. Hayward are the only named 

executives who participated in the Retirement Plan and the Supplemental Plans. 

We distributed all benefits remaining in the Retirement Plan during 2015. Except for retirees who were already receiving 

payments under the Retirement Plan (or “in pay status”), participants in that plan had the choice of receiving either a lump 

sum payment or an annuity. For participants who elected to receive a lump sum payment, the amount they received 

represented the actuarial equivalent value of the participant’s accrued benefit under the Retirement Plan as of the distribution 

date, calculated in accordance with the amended terms of the Retirement Plan using the plan’s benefit reduction factors for 
186

early retirement applicable for annuity payments and based on the participant’s age on the distribution date. For participants 

electing an annuity, we purchased annuities from an annuity provider.

We also distributed all benefits remaining in the Supplemental Plans in July 2015. Each participant received a lump sum 

payment representing the actuarial equivalent value of the participant’s remaining accrued benefits under the Supplemental 

Plans as of the distribution dates, calculated in accordance with the terms of those plans using the Supplemental Plans’

benefit reduction factors for early retirement applicable for annuity payments and based on the participant’s age on the 

distribution dates. 

In connection with the termination of our qualified defined benefit pension plan, we are making additional contributions to 

the Retirement Savings Plan and the Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan for employees who participated in the 

Retirement Plan who were close to retirement and satisfied a rule of 65, including Mr. Benson and Mr. Hayward. These 

contributions consist of fully vested contributions to the Retirement Savings Plan equal to 4% of eligible earnings (subject to 

applicable IRS limits on contributions) and to the Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan for earnings in excess of the 

applicable IRS limits (subject to an overall limit of two times base salary), during the period from July 1, 2013 through June 

2018. To satisfy the rule of 65 for this additional contribution, as of June 30, 2013 an employee must have been at least age 

50 and the sum of the employee’s age plus years of vesting service under the Retirement Plan must have equaled at least 65. 

Retirement Savings Plan

The Retirement Savings Plan is a tax-qualified defined contribution plan for which all of our employees are generally eligible

that includes a 401(k) before-tax feature, a regular after-tax feature and a Roth after-tax feature. Under the plan, eligible 

employees may allocate investment balances to a variety of investment options. Subject to IRS limits for 401(k) plans, we 

make a contribution to the Retirement Savings Plan for our employees equal to 2% of salary and eligible incentive 

compensation, which includes the deferred salary element of our executive compensation program. Participants are fully 

vested in this 2% contribution after three years of service. In addition, we match in cash employee contributions up to 6% of 

base salary and eligible incentive compensation. Employees are 100% vested in our matching contributions. Also, for 

employees who satisfied the rule of 65, including Mr. Benson and Mr. Hayward, the company is making the additional 

contributions described in “Termination of Defined Benefit Pension Plans.” 

Terminated Defined Benefit Pension Plans 

Retirement Plan. The Retirement Plan was a tax-qualified defined benefit pension plan. Prior to the freeze on June 30, 2013 

of benefit accruals under, and termination effective December 31, 2013 of, the Retirement Plan, participation in the 

Retirement Plan was frozen. After December 31, 2007, newly hired employees were not eligible for the plan and employees 

who had not satisfied the rule of 45 did not earn additional benefits under the Retirement Plan after June 30, 2008. Prior to 

2007, participation in the Retirement Plan was generally available to employees. Mr. Benson, Mr. Bon Salle and Mr. 

Hayward were the only named executives who participated in the Retirement Plan.

Under the Retirement Plan, normal retirement benefits were computed on a single life basis using a formula based on final 

average annual earnings and years of credited service. For years of service after 1988, the pension formula was:

• 1 1/2% multiplied by final average annual earnings, plus

• 1/2% multiplied by final average annual earnings over Social Security-covered compensation multiplied by years of 

credited service.

Final average annual earnings were average annual base salary in the participant’s highest paid 36 consecutive calendar 

months during the participant’s last 120 calendar months of employment prior to June 30, 2013. As a result of the freeze of 

benefits under the Retirement Plan, earnings and service after June 30, 2013 were not taken into account in determining plan 

benefits. Provisions of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, limit the amount of annual compensation that may be 

used for calculating pension benefits and the annual benefit that may be paid. For 2013, the last year during which benefits 

accrued under the Retirement Plan, the statutory compensation cap was $255,000 and the benefit cap was $205,000. 

Supplemental Pension Plan and 2003 Supplemental Pension Plan. Prior to the freeze of benefit accruals on June 30, 2013 

and termination of the Supplemental Plans effective December 31, 2013, the purpose of the Supplemental Pension Plan was 

to provide supplemental retirement benefits using the Retirement Plan formula to employees whose base salary exceeded the 

statutory compensation cap applicable to the Retirement Plan or whose benefit under the Retirement Plan was limited by the 

statutory benefit cap applicable to the Retirement Plan. The purpose of the Supplemental Pension Plan of 2003 was to 

provide additional benefits based on eligible incentive compensation not taken into account under the Retirement Plan or the 

Supplemental Pension Plan. Eligible incentive compensation included deferred salary and incentive compensation. For 

purposes of determining benefits under the Supplemental Pension Plan of 2003, the amount of an officer’s eligible incentive 
187

compensation taken into account was limited in the aggregate to 50% of base salary. Mr. Benson, Mr. Bon Salle and Mr. 

Hayward are the only named executives who participated in the Supplemental Plans.

In 2015, we distributed all benefits remaining in our qualified and supplemental defined benefit pension plans. As a result, 

there were no accumulated benefits remaining under the plan as of December 31, 2015. The table below shows payments 

made during 2015 for each named executive under our defined benefit pension plans. 

Pension Benefits for 2015

Name Plan Name

Payments during 

2015 ($)(1)

Timothy Mayopoulos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not applicable

David Benson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Retirement Plan 535,050

Supplemental Pension Plan 628,084

2003 Supplemental Pension Plan 610,085

Andrew Bon Salle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Retirement Plan 730,917

Supplemental Pension Plan 351,536

2003 Supplemental Pension Plan 584,362

Brian Brooks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Not applicable

Jeffery Hayward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Retirement Plan 1,585,000

Supplemental Pension Plan 651,699

2003 Supplemental Pension Plan 1,143,233

__________

(1) For Mr. Benson and Mr. Bon Salle, the reported amounts for the Retirement Plan reflect lump sum payments we made to them in 

accordance with their election as a result of the termination of the plan. For Mr. Hayward, the reported amount reflects the price of the 

annuity we purchased for him in accordance with his election. Amounts shown for the Supplemental Plans reflect lump sum payments 

to the named executives. 

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

We provide nonqualified deferred compensation to the named executives pursuant to our Supplemental Retirement Savings 

Plan. Our Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan is an unfunded, non-tax-qualified defined contribution plan. The 

Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan is intended to supplement our Retirement Savings Plan, or 401(k) plan, by providing 

benefits to participants whose eligible earnings exceed the IRS annual limit on eligible compensation for 401(k) plans (for 

2015, the annual limit was $265,000). All of our named executives participate in the Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan.

We credit 8% of the eligible compensation for our named executives that exceeds the applicable IRS annual limit. Eligible 

compensation in any year consists of base salary plus any eligible incentive compensation (which includes deferred salary) 

earned for that year, up to a combined maximum of two times base salary. The 8% credit consists of two parts: (1) a 2% 

credit that will vest after the participant has completed three years of service with us; and (2) a 6% credit that is immediately 

vested. Also, for employees who satisfied the rule of 65, including Mr. Benson and Mr. Hayward, the company is making the 

additional contributions described in “Pension Benefits—Termination of Defined Benefit Pension Plans.”

While the Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan is not funded, amounts credited on behalf of a participant under the 

Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan are deemed to be invested in mutual fund investments selected by the participant that 

are similar to the investments offered under our Retirement Savings Plan.

Amounts deferred under the Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan are payable to participants in the January or July 

following separation from service with us, subject to a six month delay in payment for our 50 most highly-compensated 

officers. Participants may not withdraw amounts from the Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan while they are employees.

The table below provides information on the nonqualified deferred compensation of the named executives in 2015, all of 

which was provided pursuant to our Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan. 
188

Nonqualified Deferred Compensation for 2015

Name

Executive

Contributions

in 2015 ($)

Company

Contributions 

in 2015 ($)(1)

Aggregate

Earnings in

2015 ($)(2)

Aggregate

Withdrawals/

Distributions ($)

Aggregate

Balance at

December 31, 

2015 ($)(3)

Timothy Mayopoulos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 31,646 (3,099) — 388,501

David Benson(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 112,200 — — 270,293

Andrew Bon Salle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 56,862 (2,479) — 120,851

Brian Brooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 18,800 (32) — 18,768

Jeffery Hayward(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 72,969 (1,658) — 142,089

__________

(1) All amounts reported in this column as company contributions in the last fiscal year are also reported as 2015 compensation in the “All 

Other Compensation” column of the “Summary Compensation Table for 2015, 2014 and 2013.” 

(2) None of the earnings reported in this column are reported as 2015 compensation in the “Summary Compensation Table for 2015, 2014

and 2013” because the earnings are neither above-market nor preferential.

(3) Amounts reported in this column for Mr. Mayopoulos include company contributions in 2014 and 2013 to the Supplemental Retirement 

Savings Plan of $27,200 and $67,569, respectively, that are also reported as compensation for those years, respectively, in the “All 

Other Compensation” column of the “Summary Compensation Table for 2015, 2014 and 2013.”

Amounts reported in this column for Mr. Benson include company contributions in 2014 and 2013 to the Supplemental Retirement 

Savings Plan of $110,739 and $42,900, respectively, that are also reported as compensation for those years, respectively, in the “All 

Other Compensation” column of the “Summary Compensation Table for 2015, 2014 and 2013.”

Amounts reported in this column for Mr. Bon Salle include company contributions in 2014 to the Supplemental Retirement Savings 

Plan of $51,123 that are also reported as 2014 compensation in the “All Other Compensation” column of the “Summary Compensation 

Table for 2015, 2014 and 2013.”

(4) Company contributions for Mr. Benson and Mr. Hayward include the additional credits each receives as a result of satisfying the rule of 

65, which are described above under “Pension Benefits—Termination of Defined Benefit Pension Plans.”

Potential Payments Upon Termination or Change-in-Control

The information below describes and quantifies certain compensation and benefits that would have become payable to each 

of our named executives under our existing plans and arrangements if the named executive’s employment had terminated on 

December 31, 2015 under each of the circumstances described below, taking into account the named executive’s 

compensation and service levels as of that date. The discussion below does not reflect retirement or deferred compensation 

plan benefits to which our named executives may be entitled, as these benefits are described above under “Pension Benefits” 

and “Nonqualified Deferred Compensation.” The information below also does not generally reflect compensation and 

benefits available to all salaried employees upon termination of employment with us under similar circumstances. We are not 

obligated to provide any additional compensation to our named executives in connection with a change-in-control.

Potential Payments to Named Executives

We have not entered into agreements with any of our named executives that would entitle the executive to severance benefits. 

Under the 2015 executive compensation program, a named executive would be entitled to receive a specified portion of his 

earned but unpaid 2015 deferred salary if his employment was terminated for any reason, other than for cause. 

Below we discuss various elements of the named executives’ compensation that would become payable in the event a named 

executive dies, resigns, retires, or his employment is terminated by the company. We then quantify the amounts that would be 

paid to our named executives in these circumstances, in each case assuming the triggering event occurred on December 31, 

2015.
189

• Deferred Salary. If a named executive is separated from employment with the company for any reason other than 

termination for cause (including his death, resignation, retirement or the termination of his employment by the company 

without cause), he would receive:

• the earned but unpaid portion of his fixed deferred salary, reduced by 2% for each full or partial month by 

which the named executive’s termination precedes January 31 of the second year following the performance 

year (or, if later, the end of the twenty-fourth month following the month in which the named executive first 

earned deferred salary), except that the reduction will not apply if at the time of separation the named executive 

is age 62 or older, or age 55 with 10 years of service with Fannie Mae;

• the earned but unpaid portion of his at-risk deferred salary, subject to reduction from the target level for 

corporate and individual performance for the applicable performance year; and

• interest on the earned but unpaid portion of his 2015 deferred salary, which accrues at one-half of the one-year 

Treasury Bill rate in effect on the last business day immediately preceding the year in which the deferred salary 

is earned. For 2015 deferred salary, interest accrues at an annual rate of 0.125%.

Installment payments of deferred salary would be made on the original payment schedule.

If a named executive’s employment is terminated by the company for cause, he would not receive any of the earned but 

unpaid portion of his deferred salary. The company may terminate an executive for cause if it determines that the 

executive has: (a) materially harmed the company by, in connection with the performance of his duties for the company, 

engaging in gross misconduct or performing his duties in a grossly negligent manner; or (b) been convicted of, or 

pleaded nolo contendere with respect to, a felony.

• Retiree Medical Benefits. We currently make certain retiree medical benefits available to our full-time employees who 

meet certain age and service requirements at the time of retirement.

The table below shows the amounts that would have become payable to each of our named executives if his employment had 

terminated on December 31, 2015. 

Potential Payments Upon Termination as of December 31, 2015

Name

2015 Fixed

Deferred Salary

($)(1)

2015 At-Risk

Deferred Salary

($)(2) Total ($)

Timothy Mayopoulos

Resignation, retirement, death or termination without cause . . . . . . . . . 512,522 476,634 989,156

Termination for cause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — —

David Benson

Resignation, retirement, death or termination without cause . . . . . . . . . 1,501,875 887,608 2,389,483

Termination for cause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — —

Andrew Bon Salle

Resignation, retirement, death or termination without cause . . . . . . . . . 822,427 680,500 1,502,927

Termination for cause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — —

Brian Brooks

Resignation, retirement, death or termination without cause . . . . . . . . . 874,292 710,087 1,584,379

Termination for cause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — —

Jeffery Hayward

Resignation, retirement, death or termination without cause . . . . . . . . . 961,200 606,532 1,567,732

Termination for cause . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — —

__________

(1) Mr. Bon Salle and Mr. Brooks would have each received 74% of his 2015 fixed deferred salary, which is the earned but unpaid portion 

of his 2015 fixed deferred salary as of December 31, 2015, reduced by 2% for each full or partial month by which the named 

executive’s separation from employment preceded January 31, 2017. Because Mr. Mayopoulos did not earn deferred salary until July 

2015, he would have received the earned but unpaid portion of his 2015 fixed deferred salary as of December 31, 2015 reduced by 2% 

for each full or partial month by which his separation from employment preceded July 31, 2017, or 62% of his 2015 fixed deferred 

salary. Mr. Benson and Mr. Hayward would have each received 100% of his 2015 fixed deferred salary, with no reduction, because each 

would have been age 55 with 10 years of service with Fannie Mae at the time of termination. Amounts shown in the table include 

interest payable on the fixed deferred salary. 
190

(2) In the event of resignation, retirement, death or termination without cause, each named executive would have received all of his earned 

but unpaid 2015 at-risk deferred salary, as determined by FHFA and the Board of Directors in early 2016 (that is, his earned but unpaid 

2015 at-risk deferred salary target, reduced by the amounts determined by FHFA and the Board of Directors in early 2016 as a result of 

corporate and individual performance). See the “At-Risk Deferred Salary (Performance-Based)” sub-column of the “Summary 

Compensation Table for 2015, 2014 and 2013” above for the amount of 2015 at-risk deferred salary that was awarded to each named 

executive. Amounts shown in the table include interest payable on the at-risk deferred salary. 

Director Compensation 

Our non-management directors receive cash compensation pursuant to a program authorized by FHFA in November 2008. 

This compensation for the directors is designed to be reasonable, appropriate and commensurate with the duties and 

responsibilities of their Board service.

The total 2015 compensation for our non-management directors is shown in the table below. Mr. Mayopoulos, our only 

director who also served as an employee of Fannie Mae during 2015, was not entitled to receive any additional compensation 

for his service as a director.

2015 Non-Employee Director Compensation Table 

Name

Fees Earned

or Paid

in Cash ($)(1)

Amy E. Alving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160,000

William Thomas Forrester. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185,000

Brenda J. Gaines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180,000

Charlynn Goins . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127,500

Frederick B. “Bart” Harvey III . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162,151

Robert H. Herz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170,000

Diane C. Nordin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170,000

Egbert L. J. Perry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290,000

Jonathan Plutzik. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170,000

David H. Sidwell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175,000

__________

(1) Directors who chair a Board committee or serve on the Audit Committee receive additional fees for their service. Amounts shown in 

this table reflect Ms. Goins’ resignation from the Board of Directors in September 2015, and Mr. Harvey’s succeeding her in the role of 

Chair of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee.

Compensation Arrangements for our Non-Management Directors

Our non-management directors receive a retainer at an annual rate of $160,000, with no meeting fees. Committee chairs and 

Audit Committee members receive an additional retainer at an annual rate of $25,000 for the Audit Committee chair, $15,000 

for the Risk Policy & Capital Committee chair and $10,000 for all other committee chairs and each member of the Audit 

Committee. In recognition of the substantial amount of time and effort necessary to fulfill the duties of non-executive 

Chairman of the Board, the annual retainer for our non-executive Chairman, Mr. Perry, is $290,000. Our directors receive no 

equity compensation.

Additional Arrangements with our Non-Management Directors

Matching Charitable Gifts Program. To further our support for charitable giving, non-employee directors are able to 

participate in our corporate matching gifts program on the same terms as our employees. Under this program, gifts made by 

employees and directors to Section 501(c)(3) charities are matched, up to an aggregate total of $2,500 for the 2015 calendar 

year. No non-employee directors participated in our matching gifts program in 2015.

Stock Ownership Guidelines for Directors. In 2009, our Board of Directors eliminated our stock ownership requirements for 

directors.

Other Expenses. We also pay for or reimburse directors for out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with their service 

on the Board of Directors, including travel to and from our meetings, accommodations, meals and training.
191

Item 12. Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters

EQUITY COMPENSATION PLAN INFORMATION

The following table provides information about shares of common stock that may be issued under our equity compensation 

plans. However, we are prohibited from issuing new stock without the prior written consent of Treasury other than as 

required by the terms of any binding agreement in effect on the date of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement.

Equity Compensation Plan Information

As of December 31, 2015

Plan Category

Number of

Securities to be

Issued upon

Exercise of

Outstanding

Options,

Warrants

and Rights

Weighted-Average

Exercise Price of

Outstanding

Options, Warrants

and Rights

Number of

Securities

Remaining Available

for Future Issuance

under Equity

Compensation Plans

(Excluding

Securities

Reflected in First

Column)

Equity compensation plans approved by stockholders. . . . . . . . . 4,817 (1) N/A (2) 11,960,258 (3)

Equity compensation plans not approved by stockholders. . . . . . N/A N/A N/A

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,817 N/A 11,960,258

__________

(1) These shares of common stock underlie deferred shares that were issued under the Fannie Mae Stock Compensation Plan of 2003. 

These shares will become payable to the holder of the deferred shares in accordance with the terms of that plan.

(2) There is no exercise price associated with the payout of deferred shares.

(3) Our only plan under which shares remain available for issuance is the 1985 Employee Stock Purchase Plan. Under the terms of our 

senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury, we may not sell or issue any equity securities without the prior written 

consent of Treasury, other than as required by the terms of any binding agreement in effect on the date of the senior preferred stock 

purchase agreement.
192

BENEFICIAL OWNERSHIP

The following table shows the beneficial ownership of our common stock by each of our current directors and the named 

executives, and all current directors and executive officers as a group, as of February 15, 2016. As of that date, no director or 

named executive, nor all directors and current executive officers as a group, owned as much as 1% of our outstanding 

common stock or preferred stock.

Number of Shares 

Beneficially Owned(1)

Name and Position

8.25% NonCumulative

Series T

Preferred Stock Common Stock

Amy E. Alving. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

Director

David C. Benson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

Executive Vice President—Chief Financial Officer

Andrew J. Bon Salle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,000 0

Executive Vice President—Single-Family Business

Brian P. Brooks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

Executive Vice President, General Counsel and Corporate Secretary

William Thomas Forrester. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

Director

Hugh R. Frater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

Director

Brenda J. Gaines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 487

Director

Renee L. Glover. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

Director

Frederick B. Harvey, III. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

Director

Jeffery R. Hayward . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 14,868

Executive Vice President and Head of Multifamily

Robert H. Herz. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

Director

Timothy J. Mayopoulos. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

President and Chief Executive Officer

Diane C. Nordin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

Director

Egbert L. J. Perry. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

Chairman of the Board

Jonathan Plutzik. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

Director

David H. Sidwell. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 0

Director

All directors and current executive officers as a group (20 persons) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 56,038

__________

(1) Beneficial ownership is determined in accordance with the rules of the SEC for computing the number of shares of common stock 

beneficially owned by each person and the percentage owned. Each holder has sole investment and voting power over the shares 

referenced in this table. 
193

The following table shows the beneficial ownership of our common stock by each holder of more than 5% of our common 

stock as of February 15, 2016.

5% Holders

Common Stock

Beneficially Owned Percent of Class

Department of the Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Variable(1) 79.9%

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Room 3000 Washington, DC 20220

Pershing Square Capital Management, L.P.

PS Management GP, LLC

William A. Ackman . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115,569,796(2) 9.98%

888 Seventh Avenue, 42nd Floor 

New York, New York 10019 

__________

(1) In September 2008, we issued to Treasury a warrant to purchase, for one one-thousandth of a cent ($0.00001) per share, shares of our 

common stock equal to 79.9% of the total number of shares of our common stock outstanding on a fully diluted basis at the time the 

warrant is exercised. The warrant may be exercised in whole or in part at any time until September 7, 2028. As of February 19, 2016, 

Treasury has not exercised the warrant. The information above assumes Treasury beneficially owns no other shares of our common 

stock.

(2) Information regarding these shares and their holders is based solely on information contained in a Schedule 13D filed with the SEC on 

November 15, 2013, as amended by an amendment to the Schedule 13D filed on March 31, 2014. The Schedule 13D and its 

amendment were filed by these holders as well as by Pershing Square GP, LLC. According to the original Schedule 13D Pershing 

Square Capital Management, L.P., as investment adviser for a number of funds for which it purchased the shares reported in the table 

above, and PS Management GP, LLC, its general partner, may be deemed to share voting and dispositive power for the shares. Pershing 

Square GP, LLC, as general partner of two of the funds, may be deemed to share voting and dispositive power for 40,114,044 of the 

shares reported in the table above, which are held by the two funds. As the Chief Executive Officer of Pershing Square Capital 

Management, L.P. and managing member of each of PS Management GP, LLC and Pershing Square GP, LLC, William A. Ackman may 

be deemed to share voting and dispositive power for all of the shares reported in the table above. In the amendment, the parties further 

reported that certain of them had entered into swap transactions resulting in their having additional economic exposure to 

approximately 15,434,715 notional shares of common stock under certain cash-settled total return swaps, bringing their total aggregate 

economic exposure to 131,004,511 shares of common stock (approximately 11.31% of the outstanding common stock). 

In the amendment to the Schedule 13D, these parties indicated that they would forgo future reporting on Schedule 13D based on their 

determination that shares of the common stock are not voting securities as such term is used in Rule 13d-1(i) under the Securities 

Exchange Act. As a result, the information in the table above does not reflect any acquisitions or dispositions by these holders of Fannie 

Mae common stock that occurred after March 31, 2014.

Item 13. Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence

POLICIES AND PROCEDURES RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PERSONS

We review transactions in which Fannie Mae is a participant and in which any of our directors or executive officers or their 

immediate family members may have a material interest to determine whether any of those persons has a material interest in 

the transaction. Our current written policies and procedures for the review, approval or ratification of transactions with related 

persons that are required to be reported under Item 404(a) of Regulation S-K are set forth in our:

• Code of Conduct and Conflicts of Interest Policy for Members of the Board of Directors;

• Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee Charter;

• Board of Directors’ delegation of authorities and reservation of powers;

• Code of Conduct for employees; and

• Conflict of Interest Policy and Conflict of Interest Procedure for employees.

In addition, depending on the circumstances, relationships and transactions with related persons may require approval of the 

conservator pursuant to the 2012 instructions issued to the Board of Directors by the conservator or may require the approval 

of Treasury pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement.

Our Code of Conduct and Conflicts of Interest Policy for Members of the Board of Directors prohibits our directors from 

engaging in any conduct or activity that is inconsistent with our best interests, as defined by the conservator’s express 

directions, its policies and applicable federal law. The Code of Conduct and Conflicts of Interest Policy for Members of the 

Board of Directors requires each of our directors to excuse himself or herself from voting on any issue before the Board that 
194

could result in a conflict, self-dealing or other circumstance where the director’s position as a director would be detrimental 

to us or result in a noncompetitive, favored or unfair advantage to either the director or the director’s associates. In addition, 

our directors must disclose to the Chair of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, or another member of the 

committee, any situation that involves or appears to involve a conflict of interest. This includes, for example, any financial 

interest of a director, an immediate family member of a director or a business associate of a director in any transaction being 

considered by the Board, as well as any financial interest a director may have in an organization doing business with us. Each 

of our directors also must annually certify compliance with the Code of Conduct and Conflicts of Interest Policy for 

Members of the Board of Directors.

The Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee Charter and our Board’s delegation of authorities and reservation of 

powers require the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee to approve any transaction that Fannie Mae engages in 

with any director, nominee for director or executive officer, or any immediate family member of a director, nominee for 

director or executive officer, that is required to be disclosed pursuant to Item 404 of Regulation S-K. In addition, the Board’s 

delegation of authorities and reservation of powers requires the Board and the conservator to approve any action that in the 

reasonable business judgment of management at the time the action is taken is likely to cause significant reputational risk to 

the company or result in substantial negative publicity. Depending on management’s business judgment, this requirement 

might include a related party transaction.

Our Code of Conduct for employees requires that we and our employees seek to avoid any actual or apparent conflict 

between our business interests and the personal interests of our employees or their family members. An employee who knows 

or suspects a violation of our Code of Conduct must raise the issue with the employee’s manager, another appropriate 

member of management, a member of our Human Resources division or our Compliance and Ethics division.

Our Conflict of Interest Policy and Conflict of Interest Procedure for employees requires that our executive officers report to 

the Compliance & Ethics division any existing or currently proposed transaction with us, whether or not in the ordinary 

course of business, in which the executive officer or any immediate family member of the executive officer has a direct or 

indirect interest. Our Conflict of Interest Procedure for employees provides that the Compliance & Ethics division will refer 

any such report to the Legal department for review to determine whether the Nominating & Corporate Governance 

Committee or FHFA is required to review and approve the transaction pursuant to the Nominating & Corporate Governance 

Committee Charter and/or the Board’s delegation of authorities and reservation of powers.

We are required by the conservator to obtain its approval for various matters, some of which may involve relationships or 

transactions with related persons. These matters include actions involving the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, the 

creation of any subsidiary or affiliate, any substantial non-ordinary course transaction with a subsidiary or affiliate, the 

compensation or benefits of directors and officers at the senior vice president level and above and other executives FHFA

may designate, and actions that in the reasonable business judgment of management at the time that the action is to be taken 

are likely to cause significant reputational risk or result in substantial negative publicity. The senior preferred stock purchase 

agreement requires us to obtain written Treasury approval of transactions with affiliates unless, among other things, the 

transaction is upon terms no less favorable to us than would be obtained in a comparable arm’s-length transaction with a nonaffiliate or the transaction is undertaken in the ordinary course or pursuant to a contractual obligation or customary 

employment arrangement in existence at the time the senior preferred stock purchase agreement was entered into.

We also require our directors and executive officers, not less than annually, to describe to us any situation involving a 

transaction with us in which a director or executive officer could potentially have a personal interest that would require 

disclosure under Item 404 of Regulation S-K.

TRANSACTIONS WITH RELATED PERSONS

Transactions with Treasury

Treasury beneficially owns more than 5% of the outstanding shares of our common stock by virtue of the warrant we issued 

to Treasury on September 7, 2008. The warrant entitles Treasury to purchase shares of our common stock equal to 79.9% of 

our outstanding common stock on a fully diluted basis on the date of exercise, for an exercise price of $0.00001 per share, 

and is exercisable in whole or in part at any time on or before September 7, 2028. We describe below our current agreements 

with Treasury, as well as payments we are making to Treasury pursuant to the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 

2011 and payments we expect to make to Treasury beginning in 2016 pursuant to the GSE Act. 
195

FHFA, as conservator, approved the senior preferred stock purchase agreement and the amendments to the agreement, our 

role as program administrator for the Home Affordable Modification Program and other initiatives under the Making Home 

Affordable Program, and the housing finance agency transactions described below.

Treasury Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement

We issued the warrant to Treasury pursuant to the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement we entered into 

with Treasury on September 7, 2008. Under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, we also issued to Treasury one 

million shares of senior preferred stock. We issued the warrant and the senior preferred stock as an initial commitment fee in 

consideration of Treasury’s commitment to provide funds to us under the terms and conditions set forth in the senior 

preferred stock purchase agreement. The senior preferred stock purchase agreement was subsequently amended on 

September 26, 2008, May 6, 2009, December 24, 2009 and August 17, 2012. See “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury 

Agreements—Treasury Agreements” for a description of the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, the 

senior preferred stock and the warrant, including the revisions to the agreement and the senior preferred stock set forth in the 

August 2012 amendment to the agreement.

As of December 31, 2015, we had received an aggregate of $116.1 billion from Treasury under the senior preferred stock 

purchase agreement, and the remaining amount of funding available to us under the agreement was $117.6 billion. Through 

December 31, 2015, we had paid an aggregate of $144.8 billion to Treasury in dividends on the senior preferred stock. We 

expect to pay Treasury additional senior preferred stock dividends of $2.9 billion for the first quarter of 2016.

Treasury Making Home Affordable Program

In February 2009, the Obama Administration announced its Homeowner Affordability and Stability Plan, a plan to provide 

stability and affordability to the U.S. housing market. Pursuant to this plan, in March 2009, the Administration announced the 

details of its Making Home Affordable Program, a program intended to provide assistance to homeowners and prevent 

foreclosures. One of the primary initiatives under the Making Home Affordable Program is the Home Affordable 

Modification Program, or HAMP, which is aimed at helping borrowers whose loan is either currently delinquent or at 

imminent risk of default by modifying their mortgage loan to make their monthly payments more affordable. In addition to 

our participation in the Administration’s initiatives under the Making Home Affordable Program, Treasury engaged us to 

serve as program administrator for loans modified under HAMP and other initiatives under the Making Home Affordable 

Program pursuant to a financial agency agreement between Treasury and us, dated February 18, 2009. Our principal activities 

as program administrator include: 

• implementing the guidelines and policies of the Treasury program; 

• preparing the requisite forms, tools and training to facilitate efficient loan modifications by servicers; 

• creating, making available and managing the process for servicers to report modification activity and program 

performance; 

• calculating incentive compensation consistent with program guidelines; 

• acting as record-keeper for executed loan modifications and program administration; 

• coordinating with Treasury and other parties toward achievement of the program’s goals, including assisting with 

development and implementation of updates to the program and initiatives expanding the program’s reach; 

• helping servicers implement the program; and 

• performing other tasks as directed by Treasury from time to time. 

In June 2014, the Administration announced an extension of the Making Home Affordable Program until at least 

December 31, 2016, and, in December 2015, the termination of the Making Home Affordable Program was set at 

December 31, 2016 under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016. We expect our role as program administrator will 

continue for several years after the termination of the program.

Under our arrangement with Treasury, Treasury has agreed to compensate us for a significant portion of the work we have 

performed in our role as program administrator for HAMP and other initiatives under the Making Home Affordable Program. 

We expect we will have received an aggregate of approximately $425 million from Treasury for our work as program 

administrator from 2009 through 2015, as well as an additional amount of approximately $115 million for this period to be 

passed through to third-party vendors engaged by us for HAMP and other initiatives under the Making Home Affordable 

Program. We expect to continue to receive reimbursements from Treasury for our work as program administrator for HAMP

and other initiatives under the Making Home Affordable Program in future years, even after the termination of HAMP, 

through the completion of our role as program administrator.
196

In January 2015, we announced an additional borrower “pay for performance” incentive of $5,000 for Fannie Mae borrowers 

whose loans have been modified under HAMP and who remain in good standing in year six of the modification. Treasury is 

funding certain of these borrower “pay for performance” incentives from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

Treasury Housing Finance Agency Initiative

In 2009, we entered into a memorandum of understanding with Treasury, FHFA and Freddie Mac that established terms under 

which we, Freddie Mac and Treasury would provide assistance to state and local housing finance agencies (“HFAs”) so that 

the HFAs could continue to meet their mission of providing affordable financing for both single-family and multifamily 

housing. Pursuant to this HFA initiative, we, Freddie Mac and Treasury have provided assistance to the HFAs through two 

primary programs: a temporary credit and liquidity facilities (“TCLF”) program, which was intended to improve the HFAs’

access to liquidity for outstanding HFA bonds, and a new issue bond (“NIB”) program, which was intended to support new 

lending by the HFAs. We entered into various agreements in 2009 to implement these HFA assistance programs, including 

several to which Treasury is a party. Pursuant to the TCLF program, Treasury purchased participation interests in temporary 

credit and liquidity facilities provided by us and Freddie Mac to the HFAs, which facilities created a credit and liquidity 

backstop for the HFAs. Pursuant to the NIB program, Treasury purchased new securities issued and guaranteed by us and 

Freddie Mac, which are backed by new housing bonds issued by the HFAs.

In 2011, we entered into an Omnibus Consent to HFA Initiative Program Modifications with Treasury, Freddie Mac and 

FHFA pursuant to which the parties agreed to specified modifications to the HFA initiative programs, including a three-year 

extension of the expiration date for the TCLFs from December 2012 to December 2015, and a one-year extension of the 

expiration date for release of escrowed funds for the NIB program from December 31, 2011 to December 31, 2012. 

The total amount originally established by Treasury for the TCLF program and the NIB program was $23.4 billion: an 

aggregate of $8.2 billion for the TCLF program (of which $7.7 billion consisted of principal and approximately $500 million 

consisted of accrued interest) and an aggregate of $15.2 billion for the NIB program (of which $12.4 billion related to singlefamily bonds and $2.8 billion related to multifamily bonds). 

We and Freddie Mac have administered these programs on a coordinated basis. We issued temporary credit and liquidity 

facilities and securities backed by HFA bonds on a 50-50 pro rata basis with Freddie Mac under these programs. Treasury 

bears the initial losses of principal under the NIB program up to 35% of total original principal on a program-wide basis, and 

thereafter we and Freddie Mac each bear the losses of principal that are attributable to our own portion of the securities that 

we have issued. Treasury also bears any losses of unpaid interest under NIB program. As of December 31, 2015, there had 

been no losses of principal or interest under the TCLF program or the NIB program. 

The amounts outstanding under these programs have decreased over time as liquidity facilities under the TCLF program were 

replaced by the HFAs and as principal payments were received on the mortgage loans financed by the NIB program. As of 

December 31, 2015, no amount remained outstanding under the TCLF program, which ended as scheduled during 2015. The 

total unpaid principal amount outstanding under the NIB program for both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as of December 31, 

2015 was $7.5 billion, which is less than 35% of the total original principal under the program, the amount of losses that 

Treasury would bear. Accordingly, as of December 31, 2015, we no longer had a potential risk of loss under either the TCLF 

program or under the NIB program. 

Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011

In December 2011, Congress enacted the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 which, among other 

provisions, required that we increase our single-family guaranty fees by at least 10 basis points and remit this increase to 

Treasury. To meet our obligations under the TCCA and at the direction of FHFA, we increased the guaranty fee on all singlefamily residential mortgages delivered to us by 10 basis points effective April 1, 2012. FHFA and Treasury advised us to 

remit this fee increase to Treasury with respect to all loans acquired by us on or after April 1, 2012 and before January 1, 

2022, and to continue to remit these amounts to Treasury on and after January 1, 2022 with respect to loans we acquired 

before this date until those loans are paid off or otherwise liquidated. We paid $1.6 billion to Treasury in 2015 for our 

obligations under the TCCA, and as of December 31, 2015 our liability to Treasury for TCCA-related guaranty fees for the 

fourth quarter of 2015 was $429 million.

Treasury Interest in Affordable Housing Allocations 

The GSE Act requires us to set aside each fiscal 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 HUD and Treasury funds. In 

November 2008, FHFA suspended this requirement and directed us to not set aside or allocate funds until further notice. In 

December 2014, FHFA terminated this suspension and directed us to begin making contributions to the funds. Based on 
197

FHFA’s directive and the amount of our new business purchases in 2015, we expect to make our first payment of $217 

million to the funds on or before February 29, 2016. Pursuant to the GSE Act and directions from FHFA, we expect to pay 

$54 million of this amount to Treasury’s HOPE Fund, $57 million to Treasury’s Capital Magnet Fund and $106 million to 

HUD’s Housing Trust Fund. See “Business—Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities—The GSE Act—Affordable 

Housing Allocations” for more information regarding the GSE Act’s affordable housing allocation requirements.

Transactions involving The Integral Group LLC

Egbert L. J. Perry, who is the Chairman of our Board and who has been a member of our Board since December 2008, is the 

Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and controlling member of The Integral Group LLC, referred to as Integral. Prior to Mr. 

Perry joining our Board, our Multifamily business made indirect investments over a number of years in certain limited 

partnerships or limited liability companies that are controlled and managed by entities affiliated with Integral, in the capacity 

of general partner or managing member, as the case may be. These limited partnerships or limited liability companies are 

referred to as the Integral Property Partnerships. The Integral Property Partnerships own and manage LIHTC properties. We 

also hold multifamily mortgage loans made to borrowing entities sponsored by Integral. We believe that Mr. Perry has no 

material direct or indirect interest in these transactions, and therefore disclosure of these transactions in this report is not 

required pursuant to Item 404 of Regulation S-K. In addition, as described in “Director Independence—Our Board of 

Directors” below, the Board of Directors has concluded that these business relationships are not material to Mr. Perry’s 

independence.

Mr. Perry has informed us that Integral accepted no further equity investments from us relating to Integral Property 

Partnerships beginning in December 2008, when he joined our Board. Mr. Perry has also informed us that Integral does not 

intend to seek debt financing intended specifically to be purchased by us, although, as a secondary market participant, in the 

ordinary course of our business we may purchase multifamily mortgage loans made to borrowing entities sponsored by 

Integral.

DIRECTOR INDEPENDENCE

Our Board of Directors, with the assistance of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, has reviewed the 

independence of all current Board members under the requirements set forth in FHFA’s corporate governance regulations 

(which requires the standard of independence adopted by the NYSE) and under the standards of independence adopted by the 

Board, as set forth in our Corporate Governance Guidelines and outlined below. It is the policy of our Board of Directors that 

a substantial majority of our seated directors will be independent in accordance with these standards. Our Board is currently 

structured so that all but one of our directors, our Chief Executive Officer, is independent. Based on its review, the Board has 

determined that all of our non-employee directors meet the director independence requirements set forth in FHFA’s corporate 

governance regulations and in our Corporate Governance Guidelines.

Independence Standards

Under the standards of independence adopted by our Board, which meet the independence requirements set forth in FHFA’s 

corporate governance regulations (which requires the standard of independence adopted by the NYSE), an “independent 

director” must be determined to have no material relationship with us, either directly or through an organization that has a 

material relationship with us. A relationship is “material” if, in the judgment of the Board, it would interfere with the 

director’s independent judgment. The Board did not consider the Board’s duties to the conservator, together with the federal 

government’s controlling beneficial ownership of Fannie Mae, in determining independence of the Board members.

In addition, under FHFA’s corporate governance regulations, both our Audit Committee and our Compensation Committee 

are required to be in compliance with the NYSE’s listing requirements for these committees, under which committee 

members must meet additional, heightened independence criteria. Our own independence standards require all independent 

directors to meet the criteria for Audit Committee members.

To assist it in determining whether a director is independent, our Board has adopted the standards set forth below, which are 

posted on our website, www.fanniemae.com, under “Governance” in the “About Us” section of our website:

• A director will not be considered independent if, within the preceding three years:

• the director was our employee; or

• an immediate family member of the director was employed by us as an executive officer.
198

• A director will not be considered independent if:

• the director is a current partner or employee of our external auditor, or within the preceding three years, was (but is 

no longer) a partner or employee of our external auditor and personally worked on our audit within that time; or

• an immediate family member of the director is a current partner of our external auditor, or is a current employee of 

our external auditor and personally works on Fannie Mae’s audit, or, within the preceding three years, was (but is no 

longer) a partner or employee of our external auditor and personally worked on our audit within that time.

• A director will not be considered independent if, within the preceding three years:

• the director was employed by a company at a time when one of our current executive officers sat on that company’s 

compensation committee; or

• an immediate family member of the director was employed as an officer by a company at a time when one of our 

current executive officers sat on that company’s compensation committee.

• A director will not be considered independent if, within the preceding three years:

• the director received any compensation from us, directly or indirectly, other than fees for service as a director; or

• an immediate family member of the director received any compensation from us, directly or indirectly, other than 

compensation received for service as our employee (other than an executive officer).

• A director will not be considered independent if:

• the director is a current executive officer, employee, controlling stockholder or partner of a company or other entity 

that does or did business with us and to which we made, or from which we received, payments within the preceding 

three years that, in any single fiscal year, were in excess of $1 million or 2% of the entity’s consolidated gross 

annual revenues, whichever is greater; or

• an immediate family member of the director is a current executive officer of a company or other entity that does or 

did business with us and to which we made, or from which we received, payments within the preceding three years 

that, in any single fiscal year, were in excess of $1 million or 2% of the entity’s consolidated gross annual revenues, 

whichever is greater.

• A director will not be considered independent if the director or the director’s spouse is an executive officer, employee, 

director or trustee of a nonprofit organization to which we make or have made contributions within the preceding three 

years that, in a single year, were in excess of the greater of 2% of the organization’s consolidated gross annual revenues 

or $1 million.

After considering all the facts and circumstances, our Board may determine in its judgment that a director is independent (in 

other words, the director has no relationship with us that would interfere with the director’s independent judgment), even 

though the director does not meet the standards listed above, so long as the determination of independence is consistent with 

the NYSE definition of “independence.” Where the standards above do not address a particular relationship, the 

determination of whether the relationship is material, and whether a director is independent, will be made by our Board, 

based upon the recommendation of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee.

Our Board of Directors

Our Board of Directors, with the assistance of the Nominating & Corporate Governance Committee, reviewed the 

independence of all Board members under the requirements set forth in FHFA’s corporate governance regulations (which 

requires the standard of independence adopted by the NYSE) and under the standards of independence adopted by the Board 

contained in our Corporate Governance Guidelines, as outlined above. Based on its review, the Board has affirmatively 

determined that all of our non-employee directors meet the director independence standards of our Guidelines and the NYSE, 

and that each of the following eleven directors is independent: Egbert L. J. Perry, Amy E. Alving, William Thomas Forrester, 

Hugh R. Frater, Brenda J. Gaines, Renee L. Glover, Frederick B. Harvey III, Robert H. Herz, Diane C. Nordin, Jonathan 

Plutzik and David H. Sidwell. In January 2015, our Board of Directors also determined that Charlynn Goins, who served as a 

member of our Board until September 2015, met our director independence standards.

In determining the independence of each of these Board members, the Board of Directors considered the following 

relationships in addition to those addressed by the standards contained in our Guidelines as set forth above: 

• Certain of these Board members and an immediate family member of another Board member serve as directors or 

advisory Board members of other companies that engage in business with Fannie Mae. In each of these cases, the 

Board members and the immediate family member are currently only directors or advisory Board members of these 
199

other companies. In one case, prior to joining Fannie Mae’s Board of Directors a director served as an executive officer 

of, and then as Chairman of and a consultant to, a company that engages in business with Fannie Mae. In most 

instances, the payments made by or to Fannie Mae pursuant to these relationships during the past three years were 

determined to fall below our Guidelines’ thresholds of materiality for a Board member that is a current executive 

officer, employee, controlling shareholder or partner of a company engaged in business with Fannie Mae. In light of 

these facts, the Board of Directors has concluded that these business relationships are not material to the independence 

of these Board members.

• Two Board members serve as Board members of charitable organizations that have received fees from Fannie Mae. The 

amount of these fees fell substantially below our Guidelines’ thresholds of materiality for a Board member who is a 

current trustee or board member of a charitable organization that receives donations from Fannie Mae. In light of this 

fact, the Board of Directors has concluded that these relationships with the charitable organizations are not material to 

the independence of these Board members.

• Certain of these Board members serve as directors of other companies that hold Fannie Mae fixed income securities or 

control entities that direct investments in such securities. It is not possible for Fannie Mae to determine the extent of the 

holdings of these companies in Fannie Mae fixed income securities as all payments to holders are made through the 

Federal Reserve, and most of these securities are held in turn by financial intermediaries. Each director has confirmed 

that the transactions by these other companies in Fannie Mae fixed income securities are entered into in the ordinary 

course of business of these companies and are not entered into at the direction of, or upon approval by, the director in 

his capacity as a director of these companies. In light of these facts, the Board of Directors has concluded that these 

business relationships are not material to the independence of these Board members.

• Mr. Perry is an executive officer and majority member of The Integral Group LLC, which has had multiple indirect 

business relationships with Fannie Mae during the past three years. These business relationships include the following:

• Since 2006, Fannie Mae has held six multifamily mortgage loans made to six borrowing entities sponsored by 

Integral. During 2014, Integral paid off four of these loans, and only two remain. In each case, Integral participates 

in the borrowing entity as a general partner of the limited partnership, or as a managing member of the limited 

liability company, as the case may be, and holds a 0.01% economic interest in such entity. The aggregate unpaid 

principal balance of the remaining loans as of December 31, 2015 constituted approximately 2% of Integral’s total 

debt outstanding. The borrowing entities have made interest payments on these loans. The total amount of these 

interest payments did not exceed $1 million in any of the last three years.

• Fannie Mae has invested as a limited partner or member in certain LIHTC funds that in turn have invested as a 

limited partner or member in various Integral Property Partnerships, which are lower-tier project partnerships or 

limited liability companies that own LIHTC properties. Integral participates indirectly as a member or the general 

partner of the Integral Property Partnerships (each a “Project General Partner”). The Integral Property Partnerships 

construct, develop and manage housing projects, a portion of which includes affordable housing units. Each Project 

General Partner and its affiliates earn certain fees each year in connection with those project activities, and such fees 

are paid from income generated by the project (other than certain developer fees paid from development sources). 

Fannie Mae’s indirect investments in the Integral Property Partnerships, through the LIHTC funds, have not resulted 

in any direct payments by Fannie Mae to any Project General Partner or its affiliates, including Integral. Fannie 

Mae’s indirect equity investment in the Integral Property Partnerships as of December 31, 2015 constituted 

approximately 1% of the total capitalization and approximately 3% of the total equity in all of the Integral Property 

Partnerships.

The aggregate debt service and other required payments made, directly and indirectly, to or on behalf of Fannie Mae 

pursuant to these relationships with Integral for each of the past three years fall below our Guidelines’ thresholds of 

materiality for a Board member who is a current executive officer, employee, controlling shareholder or partner of a 

company that engages in business with Fannie Mae. In addition, as a limited partner or member in the LIHTC funds, 

which in turn are limited partners in the Integral Property Partnerships, Fannie Mae has no direct dealings with Integral 

or Mr. Perry and has not been involved in the management of the Integral Property Partnerships. Mr. Perry also was not 

generally aware of the identity of the limited partners or members of the LIHTC funds, as Integral sells the partnership 

or LLC interests to syndicators who, in turn, syndicate these interests to limited partners or members of their choosing. 

Further, Integral has not accepted additional equity investments from Fannie Mae since Mr. Perry joined the Board. 

Mr. Perry has informed Fannie Mae that Integral does not intend to seek debt financing specifically to be purchased by 

Fannie Mae. Based on the foregoing, the Board of Directors has concluded that these business relationships are not 

material to Mr. Perry’s independence.
200

The Board determined that none of these relationships would interfere with the director’s independent judgment.

Mr. Mayopoulos is not considered an independent director under the Guidelines because of his position as Chief Executive 

Officer.

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services

The Audit Committee of our Board of Directors is directly responsible for the appointment, oversight and evaluation of our 

independent registered public accounting firm, subject to conservator approval of matters relating to retention and 

termination. In accordance with the Audit Committee’s charter, it must approve, in advance of the service, all audit and 

permissible non-audit services to be provided by our independent registered public accounting firm and establish policies and 

procedures for the engagement of the external auditor to provide audit and permissible non-audit services. Our independent 

registered public accounting firm may not be retained to perform non-audit services specified in Section 10A(g) of the 

Exchange Act.

Deloitte & Touche LLP was our independent registered public accounting firm for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 

2014. Deloitte & Touche LLP has advised the Audit Committee that they are independent accountants with respect to the 

company, within the meaning of standards established by the PCAOB and federal securities laws administered by the SEC.

The following table displays the aggregate estimated or actual fees for professional services provided by Deloitte & Touche 

LLP, including audit fees.

For the Year Ended 

December 31,

2015 2014

Description of fees:

Audit fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $34,624,000 $33,300,000

Audit-related fees(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249,000 247,000

Tax fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35,000 —

Total fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $34,908,000 $33,547,000

__________

(1) Consists of fees billed for attest-related services on debt offerings and compliance with the covenants in the senior preferred stock 

purchase agreement with Treasury.

Pre-Approval Policy

The Audit Committee’s policy is to pre-approve all audit and permissible non-audit services to be provided by the 

independent registered public accounting firm. The independent registered public accounting firm and management are 

required to present reports on the nature of the services provided by the independent registered public accounting firm for the 

past year and the fees for such services, categorized into audit services, audit-related services, tax services and other services.

In connection with its approval of Deloitte & Touche as Fannie Mae’s independent registered public accounting firm for 

Fannie Mae’s 2015 integrated audit, the Audit Committee delegated the authority to pre-approve any additional audit and 

audit-related services to its Chairman, Mr. Forrester, who was required to report any such pre-approvals at the next scheduled 

meeting of the Audit Committee. Additionally, any services provided by Deloitte & Touche outside of the scope of the 

integrated audit must be approved by the conservator.

In 2015, we paid no fees to the independent registered public accounting firm pursuant to the de minimis exception 

established by the SEC, and all services were pre-approved.
201

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits, Financial Statement Schedules

(a) Documents filed as part of this report 

1. Consolidated Financial Statements 

An index to financial statements has been filed as part of this report beginning on page F-1 and is incorporated herein by 

reference. 

2. Financial Statement Schedules 

None. 

3. Exhibits 

An index to exhibits has been filed as part of this report beginning on page E-1 and is incorporated herein by reference.
202

SIGNATURES

Pursuant to the requirements of Section 13 or 15(d) 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

 /s/ Timothy J. Mayopoulos

Timothy J. Mayopoulos

President and Chief Executive Officer

Date: February 19, 2016

KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that each person whose signature appears below constitutes and appoints 

Timothy J. Mayopoulos and David C. Benson and each of them severally, his or her true and lawful attorney-in-fact with 

power of substitution and resubstitution to sign in his or her name, place and stead, in any and all capacities, to do any and all 

things and execute any and all instruments that such attorney may deem necessary or advisable under the Securities Exchange 

Act of 1934 and any rules, regulations and requirements of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in connection with 

the Annual Report on Form 10-K and any and all amendments hereto, as fully for all intents and purposes as he or she might 

or could do in person, and hereby ratifies and confirms all said attorneys-in-fact and agents, each acting alone, and his or her 

substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, this report has been signed below by the following 

persons on behalf of the registrant and in the capacities and on the dates indicated.

Signature Title Date

/s/ Egbert L. J. Perry Chairman of the Board of Directors February 19, 2016

Egbert L. J. Perry

/s/ Timothy J. Mayopoulos President and Chief Executive Officer February 19, 2016

Timothy J. Mayopoulos and Director

/s/ David C. Benson Executive Vice President and February 19, 2016

David C. Benson Chief Financial Officer

/s/ Gregory A. Fink Senior Vice President and Controller February 19, 2016

Gregory A. Fink

/s/ Amy E. Alving Director February 19, 2016

Amy E. Alving
203

Signature Title Date

/s/ William Thomas Forrester Director February 19, 2016

William Thomas Forrester

/s/ Hugh R. Frater Director February 19, 2016

Hugh R. Frater

 /s/ Brenda J. Gaines Director February 19, 2016

Brenda J. Gaines

 /s/ Renee L. Glover Director February 19, 2016

Renee L. Glover

 /s/ Frederick B. Harvey III Director February 19, 2016

Frederick B. Harvey III

 /s/ Robert H. Herz Director February 19, 2016

Robert H. Herz

/s/ Diane C. Nordin Director February 19, 2016

Diane C. Nordin

 /s/ Jonathan Plutzik Director February 19, 2016

Jonathan Plutzik

 /s/ David H. Sidwell Director February 19, 2016

David H. Sidwell
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 January 30, 2009 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 3.2 to

Fannie Mae’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (Commission file number 001-34140) for the year ended

December 31, 2008, filed February 26, 2009.)

4.1 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series D (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.1 to Fannie Mae’s registration statement on Form 10 (Commission file number 000-50231), filed

March 31, 2003.)

4.2 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series E (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.2 to Fannie Mae’s registration statement on Form 10 (Commission file number 000-50231), filed

March 31, 2003.)

4.3 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series F (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.3 to Fannie Mae’s registration statement on Form 10 (Commission file number 000-50231), filed

March 31, 2003.)

4.4 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series G (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.4 to Fannie Mae’s registration statement on Form 10 (Commission file number 000-50231), filed

March 31, 2003.)

4.5 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series H (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.5 to Fannie Mae’s registration statement on Form 10 (Commission file number 000-50231), filed

March 31, 2003.)

4.6 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series I (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.6 to Fannie Mae’s registration statement on Form 10 (Commission file number 000-50231), filed

March 31, 2003.)

4.7 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series L (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.7 to Fannie Mae’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Commission file number 001-34140), filed

August 8, 2008.)

4.8 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series M (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.8 to Fannie Mae’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Commission file number 001-34140), filed

August 8, 2008.)

4.9 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series N (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.9 to Fannie Mae’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Commission file number 001-34140), filed

August 8, 2008.)

4.10 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Non-Cumulative Convertible Preferred Stock,

Series 2004-1 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.10 to Fannie Mae’s Annual Report on Form 10-K

(Commission file number 001-34140) for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed February 26, 2010.)

4.11 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series O (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.11 to Fannie Mae’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (Commission file number 001-34140) for the

year ended December 31, 2009, filed February 26, 2010.)

4.12 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series P (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.12 to Fannie Mae’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (Commission file number 000-50231) for the

year ended December 31, 2012, filed April 2, 2013.)

4.13 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series Q (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.13 to Fannie Mae’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (Commission file number 000-50231) for the

year ended December 31, 2012, filed April 2, 2013.)

4.14 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series R (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.14 to Fannie Mae’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (Commission file number 000-50231) for the

year ended December 31, 2012, filed April 2, 2013.)

4.15 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series S (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.15 to Fannie Mae’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (Commission file number 000-50231) for the

year ended December 31, 2012, filed April 2, 2013.)
E-2

Item Description

4.16 Certificate of Designation of Terms of Fannie Mae Preferred Stock, Series T (Incorporated by reference to

Exhibit 4.1 to Fannie Mae’s Current Report on Form 8-K (Commission file number 000-50231), filed

May 19, 2008.)

4.17 Amended and Restated Certificate of Designation of Terms of Variable Liquidation Preference Senior

Preferred Stock, Series 2008-2, amended and restated as of September 27, 2012 (Incorporated by reference

to Exhibit 4.1 to Fannie Mae’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Commission file number 000-50231) for

the quarter ended September 30, 2012, filed November 7, 2012.)

4.18 Warrant to Purchase Common Stock, dated September 7, 2008 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.3 to

Fannie Mae’s Current Report on Form 8-K (Commission file number 001-34140), filed September 11,

2008.)

4.19 Amended and Restated Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of September 26, 2008,

between the United States Department of the Treasury and Federal National Mortgage Association, acting

through the Federal Housing Finance Agency as its duly appointed conservator (Incorporated by reference

to Exhibit 4.1 to Fannie Mae’s Current Report on Form 8-K (Commission file number 001-34140), filed

October 2, 2008.)

4.20 Amendment to Amended and Restated Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 6,

2009, between the United States Department of the Treasury and Federal National Mortgage Association,

acting through the Federal Housing Finance Agency as its duly appointed conservator (Incorporated by

reference to Exhibit 4.21 to Fannie Mae’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Commission file number

001-34140) for the quarter ended March 31, 2009, filed May 8, 2009.)

4.21 Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of

December 24, 2009, between the United States Department of the Treasury and Federal National Mortgage

Association, acting through the Federal Housing Finance Agency as its duly appointed conservator

(Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Fannie Mae’s Current Report on Form 8-K (Commission file

number 001-34140), filed December 30, 2009.)

4.22 Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of

August 17, 2012, between the United States Department of the Treasury and Federal National Mortgage

Association, acting through the Federal Housing Finance Agency as its duly appointed conservator

(Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Fannie Mae’s Current Report on Form 8-K (Commission file

number 000-50231), filed August 17, 2012.)

10.1 Repayment Provisions for SEC Executive Officers, amended and restated as of March 8, 2012†

(Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.44 to Fannie Mae’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Commission

file number 000-50231) for the quarter ended March 31, 2012, filed May 9, 2012.)

10.2 Fannie Mae Form of Indemnification Agreement for directors and officers of Fannie Mae (Incorporated by

reference to Exhibit 10.15 to Fannie Mae’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (Commission file number

001-34140) for the year ended December 31, 2008, filed February 26, 2009.)

10.3 Fannie Mae Stock Compensation Plan of 2003, as amended through December 14, 2007† (Incorporated by

reference to Exhibit 10.21 to Fannie Mae’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (Commission file number

000-50231) for the year ended December 31, 2012, filed April 2, 2013.)

10.4 Amendment to Fannie Mae Stock Compensation Plan of 2003, as amended, for Internal Revenue Code

Section 409A, adopted December 22, 2008† (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.28 to Fannie Mae’s

Annual Report on Form 10-K (Commission file number 001-34140) for the year ended December 31, 2008,

filed February 26, 2009.)

10.5 2009 Amendment to Fannie Mae Stock Compensation Plans of 1993 and 2003† (Incorporated by reference

to Exhibit 10.1 to Fannie Mae’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Commission file number 001-34140), filed

November 5, 2009.)

10.6 Fannie Mae Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan, as amended through April 29, 2008† (Incorporated by

reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Fannie Mae’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Commission file number

001-34140) for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, filed August 8, 2008.)

10.7 Amendment to Fannie Mae Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan, effective October 8, 2008†

(Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.32 to Fannie Mae’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (Commission file

number 001-34140) for the year ended December 31, 2008, filed February 26, 2009.)

10.8 Amendment to Fannie Mae Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan, effective May 14, 2010† (Incorporated

by reference to Exhibit 10.2 to Fannie Mae’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Commission file number

001-34140) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010, filed August 5, 2010.)
E-3

Item Description

10.9 Amendment to Fannie Mae Supplemental Retirement Savings plan for 2012 Executive Compensation

Program, adopted May 18, 2012† (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.3 to Fannie Mae’s Quarterly

Report on Form 10-Q (Commission file number 000-50231) for the quarter ended June 30, 2012, filed

August 8, 2012.)

10.10 Amendment, effective July 1, 2013, to Fannie Mae Supplemental Retirement Savings Plan† (Incorporated

by reference to Exhibit 10.4 to Fannie Mae’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Commission file number

000-50231) for the quarter ended September 30, 2013, filed November 7, 2013.)

10.11 Amended and Restated Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of September 26, 2008,

between the United States Department of the Treasury and Federal National Mortgage Association, acting

through the Federal Housing Finance Agency as its duly appointed conservator (Incorporated by reference

Exhibit 4.1 to Fannie Mae’s Current Report on Form 8-K (Commission file number 001-34140), filed

October 2, 2008.)

10.12 Amendment to Amended and Restated Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of May 6,

2009, between the United States Department of the Treasury and Federal National Mortgage Association,

acting through the Federal Housing Finance Agency as its duly appointed conservator (Incorporated by

reference to Exhibit 4.21 to Fannie Mae’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (Commission file number

001-34140), filed May 8, 2009.)

10.13 Second Amendment to Amended and Restated Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of

December 24, 2009, between the United States Department of the Treasury and Federal National Mortgage

Association, acting through the Federal Housing Finance Agency as its duly appointed conservator

(Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Fannie Mae’s Current Report on Form 8-K (Commission file

number 001-34140), filed December 30, 2009.)

10.14 Third Amendment to Amended and Restated Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement, dated as of

August 17, 2012, between the United States Department of the Treasury and Federal National Mortgage

Association, acting through the Federal Housing Finance Agency as its duly appointed conservator

(Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 4.1 to Fannie Mae’s Current Report on Form 8-K (Commission file

number 000-50231), filed August 17, 2012.)

10.15 Letter Agreement between Fannie Mae and Timothy J. Mayopoulos, dated March 9, 2009† (Incorporated by

reference to Exhibit 10.44 to Fannie Mae’s Annual Report on Form 10-K (Commission file number

001-34140) for the year ended December 31, 2009, filed February 26, 2010.)

10.16 Letter Agreement between Timothy J. Mayopoulos and Fannie Mae, effective as of June 18, 2012†

(Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 to Fannie Mae’s Current Report on Form 8-K (Commission file

number 000-50231), filed June 5, 2012.)

10.17 Memorandum of Understanding among the Department of the Treasury, the Federal Housing Finance

Agency, the Federal National Mortgage Association, and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation,

dated October 19, 2009 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 99.1 to Fannie Mae’s Current Report on

Form 8-K (Commission file number 001-34140), filed October 23, 2009.)

10.18 Omnibus Consent to HFA Initiative Program Modifications among the Department of Treasury, the Federal

Housing Finance Agency, Federal National Mortgage Association, and Federal Home Loan Mortgage

Corporation, dated November 23, 2011 (Incorporated by reference to Exhibit 10.42 to Fannie Mae’s Annual

Report on Form 10-K (Commission file number 000-50231) for the year ended December 31, 2011, filed

February 29, 2012.)

12.1 Statement re: computation of ratio of earnings to fixed charges

12.2 Statement re: computation of ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends and

issuance cost at redemption

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 Labels*
E-4

Item Description

101. PRE XBRL Taxonomy Extension Presentation*

__________

† This Exhibit is a management contract or compensatory plan or arrangement.

* The financial information contained in these XBRL documents is unaudited. 
F-1

INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

Page

Report of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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

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

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

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

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—Income Taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 11—Loss Per Share . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 12—Segment Reporting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 13—Equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 14—Regulatory Capital Requirements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 15—Concentrations of Credit Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 16—Netting Arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 17—Fair Value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 18—Commitments and Contingencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Note 19—Selected Quarterly Financial Information (Unaudited) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

F-2

F-3

F-4

F-5

F-6

F-7

F-7

F-24

F-26

F-31

F-33

F-37

F-38

F-38

F-40

F-43

F-45

F-45

F-50

F-57

F-58

F-64

F-66

F-91

F-93
F-2

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

To Fannie Mae:

We have audited the accompanying consolidated balance sheets of Fannie Mae and consolidated entities (in 

conservatorship) (the “Company”) as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the related consolidated statements of 

operations and comprehensive income, cash flows, and changes in equity for each of the three years in the period ended 

December 31, 2015. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management. Our responsibility is 

to express an opinion on the financial statements based on our audits. 

We conducted our audits in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United 

States). Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the 

financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting 

the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and 

significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe 

that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

In our opinion, such consolidated financial statements present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of 

Fannie Mae and consolidated entities (in conservatorship) as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and the results of their 

operations and their cash flows for each of the three years in the period ended December 31, 2015, in conformity with 

accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 

As discussed in Note 1 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company is currently under the control of its 

conservator and regulator, the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”). Further, the Company directly and indirectly 

received substantial support from various agencies of the United States Government, including the United States 

Department of Treasury and FHFA. The Company is dependent upon continued support of the United States Government, 

various United States Government agencies and the Company’s conservator and regulator, FHFA.

We have also audited, in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United 

States), the Company’s internal control over financial reporting as of December 31, 2015, based on the criteria established 

in Internal Control - Integrated Framework (2013) issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway 

Commission, and our report dated February 19, 2016, expressed an adverse opinion on the Company’s internal control 

over financial reporting because of a material weakness.

/s/ Deloitte & Touche LLP

McLean, Virginia

February 19, 2016
F-3

FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

Consolidated Balance Sheets

(Dollars in millions, except share amounts)

As of December 31,

2015 2014

ASSETS

Cash and cash equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 14,674 $ 22,023

Restricted cash (includes $25,865 and $27,515, respectively, related to consolidated trusts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,879 32,542

Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell or similar arrangements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,350 30,950

Investments in securities:

Trading, at fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39,908 31,504

Available-for-sale, at fair value (includes $285 and $596, respectively, related to consolidated trusts). . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,230 30,654

Total investments in securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,138 62,158

Mortgage loans:

Loans held for sale, at lower of cost or fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,361 331

Loans held for investment, at amortized cost:

Of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233,054 272,360

Of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,809,180 2,782,344

Total loans held for investment (includes $14,075 and $15,629, respectively, at fair value). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,042,234 3,054,704

Allowance for loan losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (27,951) (35,541)

Total loans held for investment, net of allowance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,014,283 3,019,163

Total mortgage loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,019,644 3,019,494

Deferred tax assets, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,187 42,206

Accrued interest receivable, net (includes $6,974 and $7,169, respectively, related to consolidated trusts) . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,726 8,193

Acquired property, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,766 10,618

Other assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,553 19,992

Total assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,221,917 $ 3,248,176

LIABILITIES AND EQUITY

Liabilities:

Accrued interest payable (includes $8,194 and $8,282, respectively, related to consolidated trusts) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 9,794 $ 10,232

Debt:

Of Fannie Mae (includes $11,133 and $6,403, respectively, at fair value). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386,135 460,443

Of consolidated trusts (includes $23,609 and $19,483, respectively, at fair value) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,811,536 2,761,712

Other liabilities (includes $448 and $503, respectively, related to consolidated trusts). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,393 12,069

Total liabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,217,858 3,244,456

Commitments and contingencies (Note 18). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — —

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (126,942) (127,618)

Accumulated other comprehensive income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,407 1,733

Treasury stock, at cost, 150,679,953 shares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7,401) (7,401)

Total Fannie Mae stockholders’ equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,030 3,680

Noncontrolling interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 40

Total equity (See Note 1: Senior Preferred Stock and Warrant Issued to Treasury and Earnings (Loss) per Share for 

information on our dividend obligation to Treasury) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,059 3,720

Total liabilities and equity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,221,917 $ 3,248,176

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
F-4

FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

Consolidated Statements of Operations and Comprehensive Income

(Dollars and shares in millions, except per share amounts)

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Interest income:

Trading securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 444 $ 553 $ 779

Available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,156 1,622 2,357

Mortgage loans (includes $97,971, $101,835 and $101,448, respectively, related to consolidated trusts). . . 107,699 112,120 114,238

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143 110 175

Total interest income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109,442 114,405 117,549

Interest expense:

Short-term debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146 94 131

Long-term debt (includes $80,326, $85,835 and $84,751, respectively, related to consolidated trusts). . . . . 87,887 94,343 95,014

Total interest expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88,033 94,437 95,145

Net interest income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21,409 19,968 22,404

Benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 795 3,964 8,949

Net interest income after benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,204 23,932 31,353

Investment gains, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,336 936 1,127

Fair value gains (losses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,767) (4,833) 2,959

Fee and other income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,348 5,887 3,930

Non-interest income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 917 1,990 8,016

Administrative expenses:

Salaries and employee benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,319 1,321 1,218

Professional services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 984 1,076 910

Occupancy expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 203 189

Other administrative expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 565 177 228

Total administrative expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,050 2,777 2,545

Foreclosed property expense (income). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,629 142 (2,839)

Temporary Payroll Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (“TCCA”) fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,621 1,375 1,001

Other expenses, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 613 478 95

Total expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,913 4,772 802

Income before federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,208 21,150 38,567

Benefit (provision) for federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5,253) (6,941) 45,415

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,955 14,209 83,982

Other comprehensive income (loss):

Changes in unrealized gains on available-for-sale securities, net of reclassification adjustments and taxes . (763) 494 693

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 437 36 126

Total other comprehensive income (loss). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (326) 530 819

Total comprehensive income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,629 14,739 84,801

Less: Comprehensive income attributable to noncontrolling interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) (1) (19)

Total comprehensive income attributable to Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10,628 $ 14,738 $ 84,782

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10,955 $ 14,209 $ 83,982

Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) (1) (19)

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10,954 $ 14,208 $ 83,963

Dividends distributed or available for distribution to senior preferred stockholder (Note 11). . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11,216) (15,323) (85,419)

Net loss attributable to common stockholders (Note 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (262) $ (1,115) $ (1,456)

Loss per share: Basic and Diluted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (0.05) $ (0.19) $ (0.25)

Weighted-average common shares outstanding: Basic and Diluted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,762 5,762 5,762

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
F-5

FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

Consolidated Statements of Cash Flows

(Dollars in millions)

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Cash flows provided by (used in) operating activities:

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10,955 $ 14,209 $ 83,982

Reconciliation of net income to net cash provided by (used in) operating activities:

Amortization of cost basis adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6,298) (4,265) (5,104)

Benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (795) (3,964) (8,949)

Valuation gains. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (510) (2,159) (2)

Current and deferred federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,083 4,126 (47,766)

Net change in trading securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10,153) (2,666) 1,575

Net gains related to the disposition of acquired property and preforeclosure sales, including

credit enhancements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

(3,055) (4,510) (6,024)

Other, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (900) (2,109) (4,809)

Net cash provided by (used in) operating activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (6,673) (1,338) 12,903

Cash flows provided by investing activities:

Purchases of trading securities held for investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — (7,521)

Proceeds from maturities and paydowns of trading securities held for investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 768 1,358 2,491

Proceeds from sales of trading securities held for investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,104 1,668 14,585

Proceeds from maturities and paydowns of available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,394 5,853 10,116

Proceeds from sales of available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,249 3,265 15,497

Purchases of loans held for investment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (187,194) (132,650) (195,386)

Proceeds from repayments of loans acquired as held for investment of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . 25,776 24,840 47,628

Proceeds from sales of loans acquired as held for investment of Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,196 1,879 1,247

Proceeds from repayments and sales of loans acquired as held for investment of consolidated

trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

484,230 388,348 631,088

Net change in restricted cash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,663 (3,547) 38,924

Advances to lenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (118,746) (100,045) (139,162)

Proceeds from disposition of acquired property and preforeclosure sales. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,757 25,476 38,349

Net change in federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell or similar

arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3,600 8,025 (6,475)

Other, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 527 197 1,373

Net cash provided by investing activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248,324 224,667 452,754

Cash flows used in financing activities:

Proceeds from issuance of debt of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 443,371 380,282 372,361

Payments to redeem debt of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (518,575) (450,140) (459,745)

Proceeds from issuance of debt of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 347,614 275,353 409,979

Payments to redeem debt of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (511,158) (405,505) (707,544)

Payments of cash dividends on senior preferred stock to Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10,278) (20,594) (82,452)

Other, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 70 (145)

Net cash used in financing activities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (249,000) (220,534) (467,546)

Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (7,349) 2,795 (1,889)

Cash and cash equivalents at beginning of period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,023 19,228 21,117

Cash and cash equivalents at end of period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 14,674 $ 22,023 $ 19,228

Cash paid during the period for:

Interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 104,928 $ 108,667 $ 109,240

Income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,170 2,815 2,350

Non-cash activities:

Net mortgage loans acquired by assuming debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 220,168 $ 190,151 $ 433,007

Net transfers from mortgage loans of Fannie Mae to mortgage loans of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . 175,104 113,611 179,097

Transfers from advances to lenders to loans held for investment of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . 114,851 93,909 137,074

Net transfers from mortgage loans to acquired property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17,534 24,742 34,024

Transfers of mortgage loans from held for investment to held for sale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,601 2,194 1,341

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
F-6

FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

Consolidated Statements of Changes in Equity

(Dollars and shares in millions)

Fannie Mae Stockholders’ Equity

Shares Outstanding Senior

Preferred 

Stock

Preferred

Stock

Common

Stock

Retained

Earnings

(Accumulated

Deficit)

Accumulated 

Other

Comprehensive

Income (Loss)

Treasury

Stock

Non

Controlling

Interest

Total

Equity

Senior

Preferred Preferred Common

Balance as of December 31, 2012 . . . . 1 556 1,158 $ 117,149 $ 19,130 $ 687 $ (122,766) $ 384 $ (7,401) $ 41 $ 7,224

Change in investment in noncontrolling

interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — (10) (10)

Comprehensive income:

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — 83,963 — — 19 83,982

Other comprehensive income, net of tax

effect:

Changes in net unrealized gains on

available-for-sale securities (net

of tax of $529) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — 983 — — 983

Reclassification adjustment for gains

included in net income (net of tax

of $157). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — (290) — — (290)

Prior service cost and actuarial gains,

net of amortization for defined

benefit plans (net of tax of $68) . . — — — — — — — 126 — — 126

Total comprehensive income . . . . . . . . . 84,801

Senior preferred stock dividends . . . . . . — — — — — — (82,452) — — — (82,452)

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — 28 — — — 28

Balance as of December 31, 2013 . . . . 1 556 1,158 117,149 19,130 687 (121,227) 1,203 (7,401) 50 9,591

Change in investment in noncontrolling

interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — — — (11) (11)

Comprehensive income:

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — 14,208 — — 1 14,209

Other comprehensive income, net of tax

effect:

Changes in net unrealized gains on

available-for-sale securities (net

of tax of $389) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — 722 — — 722

Reclassification adjustment for gains

included in net income (net of tax

of $123). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — (228) — — (228)

Prior service cost and actuarial gains,

net of amortization for defined

benefit plans (net of tax of $20) . . — — — — — — — 36 — — 36

Total comprehensive income . . . . . . . . . 14,739

Senior preferred stock dividends . . . . . . — — — — — — (20,594) — — — (20,594)

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — (5) — — — (5)

Balance as of December 31, 2014 . . . . 1 556 1,158 117,149 19,130 687 (127,618) 1,733 (7,401) 40 3,720

Change in investment in noncontrolling

interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

— — — — — — — — — (12) (12)

Comprehensive income:

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — 10,954 — — 1 10,955

Other comprehensive income, net of tax

effect:

Changes in net unrealized gains on 

available-for-sale securities (net 

of tax of $151) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — (280) — — (280)

Reclassification adjustment for gains 

included in net income (net of tax 

of $253). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — (483) — — (483)

Prior service cost and actuarial 

losses, net of amortization for 

defined benefit plans and other, 

net of tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — — — — — 437 — — 437

Total comprehensive income . . . . . . . . . 10,629

Senior preferred stock dividends . . . . . . — — — — — — (10,278) — — — (10,278)

Balance as of December 31, 2015 . . . . 1 556 1,158 $ 117,149 $ 19,130 $ 687 $ (126,942) $ 1,407 $ (7,401) $ 29 $ 4,059

See Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

F-7

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. 

We operate in the secondary mortgage market by purchasing mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities, including 

mortgage-related securities guaranteed by us, from primary mortgage market institutions, such as commercial banks, savings 

and loan associations, mortgage banking companies, securities dealers and other investors. We do not lend money directly to 

consumers in the primary mortgage market. We provide additional liquidity in the secondary mortgage market by issuing 

guaranteed mortgage-related securities. 

We operate under three business segments: Single-Family Credit Guaranty (“Single-Family”), Multifamily and Capital 

Markets. Our Single-Family segment generates revenue primarily from the guaranty fees on the mortgage loans underlying 

guaranteed single-family Fannie Mae mortgage-backed securities (“Fannie Mae MBS”). Our Multifamily segment generates 

revenue from a variety of sources, including guaranty fees on the mortgage loans underlying multifamily Fannie Mae MBS, 

transaction fees associated with the multifamily business and bond credit enhancement fees. Our Capital Markets segment 

invests in mortgage loans, mortgage-related securities and other investments, and generates income primarily from the 

difference, or spread, between the yield on the mortgage assets we own and the interest we pay on the debt we issue in the 

global capital markets to fund the purchases of these mortgage assets.

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. 

We were directed by FHFA to voluntarily delist our common stock and each listed series of our preferred stock from the New 

York Stock Exchange and the Chicago Stock Exchange. The last trading day for the listed securities on the New York Stock 

Exchange and the Chicago Stock Exchange was July 7, 2010, and since July 8, 2010, the securities have been traded on the 

over-the-counter market. 

The conservator has the power to transfer or sell any asset or liability of Fannie Mae (subject to limitations and post-transfer 

notice provisions for transfers of qualified financial contracts) without any approval, assignment of rights or consent of any 

party. The GSE Act, however, provides that mortgage loans and mortgage-related assets that have been transferred to a 

Fannie Mae MBS trust must be held by the conservator for the beneficial owners of the Fannie Mae MBS and cannot be used 

to satisfy the general creditors of Fannie Mae. 

Neither the conservatorship nor the terms of our agreements with Treasury change our obligation to make required payments 

on our debt securities or perform under our mortgage guaranty obligations. FHFA issued a rule establishing a framework for 

conservatorship and receivership operations for the GSEs, which became effective in 2011. The rule established procedures 

for conservatorship and receivership, and priorities of claims for contract parties and other claimants. This rule is part of 

FHFA’s implementation of the powers provided by the GSE Act. 

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 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-8

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.

Senior Preferred Stock and Warrant Issued to Treasury

Senior Preferred Stock

On September 7, 2008, we, through FHFA in its capacity as conservator, entered into a senior preferred stock purchase 

agreement with Treasury. This agreement was amended and restated on September 26, 2008. The amended and restated 

agreement was subsequently amended on May 6, 2009, December 24, 2009 and August 17, 2012. 

Pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, Treasury has committed to provide us with funding as described 

below to help us maintain a positive net worth thereby avoiding the mandatory receivership trigger described above. As 

consideration for Treasury’s funding commitment, we issued one million shares of senior preferred stock and a warrant to 

purchase shares of our common stock to Treasury. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, we have received a total of $116.1 

billion from Treasury pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. 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 

December 31, 2015. As of December 31, 2015, the amount of remaining funding available to us under the senior preferred 

stock purchase agreement was $117.6 billion. 

In August 2012, we, through FHFA acting on our behalf in its capacity as conservator, entered into an amendment to the 

senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. The amendment included, among other things, the following 

revisions: 

• Dividends. The method for calculating the amount of dividends we are required to pay Treasury on the senior 

preferred stock changed as of January 1, 2013. Effective January 1, 2013, when, as and if declared, the amount of 

dividends payable on the senior preferred stock for a dividend period is determined based on our net worth as of the 

end of the immediately preceding fiscal quarter. Our net worth as defined by the agreement is the amount, if any, by 

which our total assets (excluding Treasury’s funding commitment and any unfunded amounts related to the 

commitment) exceed our total liabilities (excluding any obligation in respect of capital stock), in each case as 

reflected on our balance sheet prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United 

States of America (“GAAP”). For each dividend period from January 1, 2013 through and including December 31, 

2017, the dividend amount will be 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. If our net worth does not exceed the 

applicable capital reserve amount as of the end of a fiscal quarter, then no dividend amount will accrue or be payable 

for the applicable dividend period. The capital reserve amount was $2.4 billion and $1.8 billion for dividend periods 

in 2014 and 2015, respectively, decreased to $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. For each dividend period thereafter, the 

dividend amount will be the entire amount of our net worth, if any, as of the end of the immediately preceding fiscal 

quarter. 

• Periodic Commitment Fee. Effective January 1, 2013, the periodic commitment fee provided for under the 

agreement will not be set, accrue or be payable, as long as the dividend payment provisions described above remain 

in effect.

This amendment to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement was not accounted for as an extinguishment of the existing 

senior preferred stock purchase agreement. As a result, we did not recognize a gain or loss upon modification of the senior 

preferred stock purchase agreement. Consistent with our accounting policy, dividends on the senior preferred stock are 

accrued upon declaration, which occurs each quarter when FHFA directs us to pay the quarterly dividend to Treasury.

On December 31, 2015, we paid Treasury a dividend of $2.2 billion based on our net worth of $4.0 billion as of September 

30, 2015, less the applicable capital reserve of $1.8 billion. Based on the terms of the senior preferred stock, we expect to pay 

Treasury a dividend of $2.9 billion by March 31, 2016 based on our net worth of $4.1 billion as of December 31, 2015, less 

the applicable capital reserve of $1.2 billion. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-9

Warrant Issued to Treasury

On September 7, 2008, we issued a warrant to Treasury giving it the right to purchase, at a nominal price, shares of our 

common stock equal to 79.9% of the total common stock outstanding on a fully diluted basis on the date Treasury exercises 

the warrant. Treasury has the right to exercise the warrant, in whole or in part, at any time on or before September 7, 2028. 

We recorded the warrant at fair value in our stockholders’ equity as a component of additional paid-in-capital. The fair value 

of the warrant was calculated using the Black-Scholes Option Pricing Model. Since the warrant has an exercise price of 

$0.00001 per share, the model is insensitive to the risk-free rate and volatility assumptions used in the calculation and the 

share value of the warrant is equal to the price of the underlying common stock. We estimated that the fair value of the 

warrant at issuance was $3.5 billion based on the price of our common stock on September 8, 2008, which was after the 

dilutive effect of the warrant had been reflected in the market price. Subsequent changes in the fair value of the warrant are 

not recognized in our financial statements. If the warrant is exercised, the stated value of the common stock issued will be 

reclassified as “Common stock” in our consolidated balance sheets. Because the warrant’s exercise price per share is 

considered non-substantive (compared to the market price of our common stock), the warrant was determined to have 

characteristics of non-voting common stock, and thus is included in the computation of basic and diluted loss per share. The 

weighted-average shares of common stock outstanding for 2015, 2014 and 2013 included shares of common stock that would 

be issuable upon full exercise of the warrant issued to Treasury. 

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 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 ability to issue long-term debt has been strong primarily due to actions taken 

by the federal government to support us. 

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. In addition, 

due to our reliance on the U.S. government’s support, our access to debt funding or the cost of debt funding also could be 

materially adversely affected by a change or perceived change in the creditworthiness of the U.S. government. A downgrade 

in our credit ratings could reduce demand for our debt securities and increase our borrowing costs. Future changes or 

disruptions in the financial markets could significantly change the amount, mix and cost of funds we obtain, which also could 

increase our liquidity and roll-over risk and have a material adverse impact on our liquidity, financial condition and results of 

operations. 

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.

Basis of Presentation 

The accompanying consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with GAAP. To conform to our 

current period presentation, we have reclassified certain amounts reported in our prior periods’ consolidated financial 

statements. 

Changes in Accounting Principle—Nonaccrual Loans

Effective January 1, 2015, we changed our policy for the treatment of interest previously accrued but not collected at the date 

both single-family and multifamily loans are placed on nonaccrual status. Specifically, interest previously accrued but not 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-10

collected is reversed through interest income at the date a loan is placed on nonaccrual status. Previously, when a loan was 

placed on nonaccrual status, interest previously accrued but not collected became part of each loan’s recorded investment and 

was reviewed either individually or collectively for impairment.

We also changed our policy for when a non-modified single-family loan is returned to accrual status. Effective January 1, 

2015, a non-modified single-family loan is returned to accrual status at the point that the borrower brings the loan current. 

Previously, a non-modified single-family loan was returned to accrual status at the point that the borrower had made 

sufficient payments to reduce the delinquency status below our nonaccrual threshold of 60 days past due.

We have concluded that these changes in accounting principle are preferable as we align our nonaccrual policy with industry 

practice. This alignment increases comparability of our financial statements to these entities, resulting in improved financial 

reporting.

As these changes to our nonaccrual policy were not material to our financial statements, we wrote off the accrued interest 

receivable balance on our nonaccrual loans, as well as the corresponding allowance that related to that interest, as an 

adjustment to the 2015 benefit for credit losses and did not retrospectively adjust our consolidated financial statements for 

this change.

Change in Accounting Principle—Loans Held for Sale

Effective January 1, 2015, we changed our policy for calculating the lower of cost or fair value adjustment on loans that have 

been designated as held for sale (“HFS”). Specifically, our lower of cost or fair value calculation is performed at an 

individual loan level on the date of redesignation, if previously held for investment (“HFI”), and for all subsequent periods in 

which a loan is classified as HFS. Previously, the initial lower of cost or fair value adjustment on the date of redesignation 

was calculated at a loan level whereas the subsequent lower of cost or fair value adjustments were calculated at a pool level. 

We have concluded that this change in accounting policy is preferable as it aligns the unit of account that is used for both the 

initial and subsequent lower of cost or fair value measurements on our HFS portfolio. Additionally, by performing the lower 

of cost or fair value calculation at the loan level, the adjustment is calculated on a more disaggregated basis. 

As this change in accounting policy was not material to our financial statements, we recorded the impact of this change in 

accounting principle as an adjustment to 2015 fair value losses, net and did not retrospectively adjust our consolidated 

financial statements for this change. 

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 December 31, 2015, 

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 October 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 also deemed a related party.

Transactions with Treasury

Our administrative expenses were reduced by $68 million, $71 million and $92 million for the years ended December 31, 

2015, 2014 and 2013, 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 years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, we made tax payments of $1.2 billion, $2.8 billion and $2.4 

billion, respectively, to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), a bureau of Treasury. We received a refund of $277 million

from the IRS during the year ended December 31, 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 two primary programs: a 

temporary credit and liquidity facilities (“TCLF”) program and a new issue bond (“NIB”) program. Treasury bears the initial 

losses of principal under the TCLF program and the NIB program up to 35% of the total original principal on a combined 

program-wide basis, and thereafter we will bear the losses of principal that are attributable to the TCLF and the securities we 

have issued. Treasury also bears any losses of unpaid interest under the two programs.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-11

Pursuant to the TCLF program, Treasury purchased participation interests in temporary credit and liquidity facilities provided 

by us and Freddie Mac which created a credit and liquidity backstop for the HFAs. We had no amount outstanding under the 

TCLF program as of December 31, 2015, which ended as scheduled in July 2015, and therefore no potential risk of loss 

under the TCLF program. We had $390 million outstanding under the TCLF program, which includes principal and interest, 

of standby credit and liquidity support as of December 31, 2014. 

Pursuant to the NIB program, Treasury purchased new securities issued and guaranteed by us and Freddie Mac, which are 

backed by new housing bonds issued by the HFAs. We had $3.7 billion and $4.2 billion outstanding of pass-through 

securities backed by single-family and multifamily housing bonds issued by HFAs as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, 

respectively. As of December 31, 2015, there had been no losses of principal or interest under the NIB program.

In December 2011, Congress enacted the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (“TCCA”) which, among 

other provisions, requires that we increase our single-family guaranty fees by at least 10 basis points and remit this increase 

to Treasury. Effective April 1, 2012, the guaranty fee on all single-family residential mortgages delivered to Fannie Mae on or 

after that date was increased by 10 basis points. FHFA and Treasury have advised us to remit this fee increase to Treasury 

with respect to all loans acquired by us on or after April 1, 2012 and before January 1, 2022, and to continue to remit these 

amounts to Treasury on and after January 1, 2022 with respect to loans we acquired before this date until those loans are paid 

off or otherwise liquidated. 

The resulting fee revenue and expense are recorded in “Mortgage loans interest income” and “TCCA fees,” respectively, in 

our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. We recognized $1.6 billion, $1.4 billion and $1.0 

billion as TCCA fees for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. We remitted $1.6 billion, $1.3 

billion and $829 million in TCCA-related guaranty fees to Treasury for our quarterly obligations during the years ended 

December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. For the three months ended December 31, 2015, we have incurred $429 

million in TCCA-related guaranty fees that have not been remitted to Treasury.

For the year ended December 31, 2015, 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 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 year ended December 31, 2015. 

Pursuant to the GSE Act and directions from FHFA, on or before February 29, 2016, we expect to make payments of $57 

million to the Treasury Capital Magnet Fund and $54 million to the Treasury HOPE Fund.

In addition to the transactions with Treasury mentioned above, we also purchase and sell Treasury securities in the normal 

course of business. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, we held Treasury securities with a fair value of $29.5 billion and 

$19.5 billion, respectively, and accrued interest receivable of $15 million and $16 million, respectively. We recognized 

interest income on these securities held by us of $35 million, $18 million and $28 million for the years ended December 31, 

2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. 

Transactions with Freddie Mac

As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, we held Freddie Mac mortgage-related securities with a fair value of $5.6 billion and 

$6.9 billion, respectively, and accrued interest receivable of $22 million and $26 million, respectively. We recognized interest 

income on these securities held by us of $226 million, $283 million and $387 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 

2014 and 2013, 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 consolidated 

statements of operations and comprehensive income, of $112 million, $108 million and $109 million for the years ended 

December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

Transactions with CSS

In connection with our jointly owned company with Freddie Mac, for the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, we 

contributed $66 million and $43 million of capital into CSS, respectively. No other transactions outside of normal business 

activities have occurred between us and Freddie Mac during the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 or 2013. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-12

Use of Estimates 

Preparing 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 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, recoverability of our deferred tax assets and allowance for loan 

losses. Actual results could be different from these estimates.

In April 2012, FHFA issued 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”), which prescribes, among other 

things, classification of loans by risk category and provides guidance on when a loan should be charged off. The provisions of 

the Advisory Bulletin led us to re-evaluate our estimate of when a loan is deemed uncollectible. For the vast 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-inlieu of foreclosure or a short sale). For a subset of delinquent loans deemed to be uncollectible prior to foreclosure based 

upon our historical data, we charge off the portion of the loan (including preforeclosure property taxes and insurance 

receivable that pertain to such loans) deemed to be uncollectible prior to the date of foreclosure or other liquidation event, 

which given our current credit analytics and historical data, is when the loans are excessively delinquent and the outstanding 

loan balance exceeds the fair value of the underlying property. This change in estimate resulted in the recognition on January 

1, 2015 of (1) $1.8 billion in charge-offs of HFI loans, (2) $724 million in charge-offs of preforeclosure property taxes and 

insurance 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 HFI loans and preforeclosure 

property taxes and insurance receivable. 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.

In 2014, we updated the assumptions used to estimate cash flows for individually impaired single-family loans within our 

allowance for loan losses. This update resulted in a decrease to our allowance for loan losses and an incremental benefit for 

credit losses of approximately $600 million. In 2013, we updated the assumptions and data used to estimate our allowance for 

loan losses for individually impaired single-family loans based on current observable performance trends as well as future 

expectations of payment behavior. This update resulted in a decrease to our allowance for loan losses and an incremental 

benefit for credit losses of approximately $2.2 billion. 

In 2013, we concluded that it was more likely than not that our deferred tax assets, except the deferred tax assets relating to 

capital loss carryforwards, would be realized. This conclusion was based upon significant positive evidence of our ability to 

generate sufficient taxable income and utilize our net operating loss carryforwards. As a result, we released the valuation 

allowance on our deferred tax assets as of March 31, 2013, except for amounts that were expected to be released against 

income before federal income taxes for the remainder of the year. The release of the valuation allowance resulted in the 

recognition of $58.3 billion in benefit for income taxes in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive 

income in 2013. 

Principles of Consolidation 

Our consolidated financial statements include our accounts as well as the accounts of the other entities in which we have a 

controlling financial interest. All intercompany balances and transactions have been eliminated. The typical condition for a 

controlling financial interest is ownership of a majority of the voting interests of an entity. A controlling financial interest 

may also exist in entities through arrangements that do not involve voting interests, such as a VIE. 

VIE Assessment

We have interests in various entities that are considered VIEs. A VIE is an entity (1) that has total equity at risk that is not 

sufficient to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support from other entities, (2) where the group of 

equity holders does not have the power to direct the activities of the entity that most significantly impact the entity’s 

economic performance, or the obligation to absorb the entity’s expected losses or the right to receive the entity’s expected 

residual returns, or both, or (3) where the voting rights of some investors are not proportional to their obligations to absorb 

the expected losses of the entity, their rights to receive the expected residual returns of the entity, or both, and substantially all 

of the entity’s activities either involve or are conducted on behalf of an investor that has disproportionately few voting rights. 

We determine if an entity is a VIE by performing a qualitative analysis, which requires certain subjective decisions including, 

but not limited to, the design of the entity, the variability that the entity was designed to create and pass along to its interest 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-13

holders, the rights of the parties and the purpose of the arrangement. If we cannot conclude after a qualitative analysis 

whether an entity is a VIE, we perform a quantitative analysis. 

The primary types of VIE entities with which we are involved are securitization trusts guaranteed by us via lender swap and 

portfolio securitization transactions, limited partnership investments in low-income housing tax credit (“LIHTC”) and other 

housing partnerships, as well as mortgage and asset-backed trusts that were not created by us. 

Primary Beneficiary Determination

If an entity is a VIE, we consider whether our variable interest in that entity causes us to be the primary beneficiary. We are 

deemed to be the primary beneficiary of a VIE when we have both (1) the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most 

significantly impact the entity’s economic performance, and (2) exposure to benefits and/or losses that could potentially be 

significant to the entity. The primary beneficiary of the VIE is required to consolidate and account for the assets, liabilities, 

and noncontrolling interests of the VIE in its consolidated financial statements. The assessment of which party has the power 

to direct the activities of the VIE may require significant management judgment when (1) more than one party has power or 

(2) more than one party is involved in the design of the VIE but no party has the power to direct the ongoing activities that 

could be significant. 

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 resecuritization trust. 

Measurement of Consolidated Assets and Liabilities

When we are the transferor of assets into a VIE that we consolidate at the time of the transfer, we continue to recognize the 

assets and liabilities of the VIE at the amounts that they would have been recognized if we had not transferred them, and no 

gain or loss is recognized. For all other VIEs that we consolidate (that is, those for which we are not the transferor), we 

recognize the assets and liabilities of the VIE in our consolidated financial statements at fair value, and we recognize a gain 

or loss for the difference between (1) the fair value of the consideration paid, fair value of noncontrolling interests and the 

reported amount of any previously held interests, and (2) the net amount of the fair value of the assets and liabilities 

consolidated. However, for the securitization trusts established under our lender swap program, no gain or loss is recognized 

if the trust is consolidated at formation as there is no difference in the respective fair value of (1) and (2) above. We record 

gains or losses that are associated with the consolidation of VIEs as “Investment gains, net” in our consolidated statements of 

operations and comprehensive income. 

If we cease to be deemed the primary beneficiary of a VIE, we deconsolidate the VIE. We use fair value to measure the initial 

cost basis for any retained interests that are recorded upon the deconsolidation of a VIE. Any difference between the fair 

value and the previous carrying amount of our investment in the VIE is recorded as “Investment gains, net” in our 

consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. 

Purchase/Sale of Fannie Mae Securities

We actively purchase and may subsequently sell guaranteed MBS that have been issued through our lender swap and 

portfolio securitization transaction programs. The accounting for the purchase and sale of our guaranteed MBS issued by the 

trusts differs based on the characteristics of the securitization trusts and whether the trusts are consolidated. 

Single-Class Securitization Trusts 

We create single-class securitization trusts to issue single-class Fannie Mae MBS that evidence an undivided interest in the 

mortgage loans held in the trust. Investors in single-class Fannie Mae MBS receive principal and interest payments in 

proportion to their percentage ownership of the MBS issuance. We guarantee to each single-class securitization trust that we 

will supplement amounts received by the single-class securitization trust as required to permit timely payments of principal 

and interest on the related Fannie Mae MBS. This guaranty exposes us to credit losses on the loans underlying Fannie Mae 

MBS. 

Single-class securitization trusts are used for both our lender swap and portfolio securitization transaction programs. A lender 

swap transaction occurs when a mortgage lender delivers a pool of single-family mortgage loans to us, which we 

immediately deposit into an MBS trust. The MBS are then issued to the lender in exchange for the mortgage loans. A

portfolio securitization transaction occurs when we purchase mortgage loans from third-party sellers for cash and later 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-14

deposit these loans into an MBS trust. The securities issued through a portfolio securitization are then sold to investors for 

cash. We consolidate single-class securitization trusts that are issued under these programs when our role as guarantor and 

master servicer provides us with the power to direct matters, such as the servicing of the 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 (e.g., when the loan collateral is subject to a Federal Housing 

Administration guaranty and related Servicing Guide). 

When we purchase single-class Fannie Mae MBS issued from a consolidated trust, we account for the transaction as an 

extinguishment of the related debt in our consolidated financial statements. We record a gain or loss on the extinguishment of 

such debt to the extent that the purchase price of the MBS does not equal the carrying value of the related consolidated debt 

reported in our consolidated balance sheets (including unamortized premiums, discounts or the other cost basis adjustments) 

at the time of purchase. We account for the sale of an MBS from Fannie Mae’s portfolio that was issued from a consolidated 

trust as the issuance of debt in our consolidated financial statements. We amortize the related premiums, discounts and other 

cost basis adjustments into income over time. 

To determine the order in which consolidated debt is extinguished, we have elected to use a daily convention in the 

application of the last-issued first-extinguished method. Under this method, we record the net daily change in each MBS 

holding as either the issuance of debt if there has been an increase in the position that is held by third parties, or the 

extinguishment of the most recently issued related debt if there has been a decrease in the position held by third parties. The 

impact of this method is that we record the net daily activity for an MBS as if it were a single buy or sell trade, which results 

in a change in our beginning debt balance if the total unpaid principal balance purchased does not match the total unpaid 

principal balance sold. 

If a single-class securitization trust is not consolidated, we account for the purchase and subsequent sale of such securities as 

the transfer of an investment security in accordance with the accounting guidance for transfers of financial assets. 

Single-Class Resecuritization Trusts 

Single-class resecuritization trusts (Fannie Megas®) are created by depositing Fannie Mae MBS into a new securitization 

trust for the purpose of aggregating multiple MBS into a single larger security. The cash flows from the new security 

represent an aggregation of the cash flows from the underlying MBS. We guarantee to each single-class resecuritization trust 

that we will supplement amounts received by the trust as required to permit timely payments of principal and interest on the 

related Fannie Mae securities. However, we assume no additional credit risk in such a resecuritization transaction, because 

the underlying assets are MBS for which we have already provided a guaranty. Additionally, our involvement with these 

trusts does not provide any incremental rights or power that would enable Fannie Mae to direct any activities of the trusts. As 

a result, we have concluded that we are not the primary beneficiaries of, and therefore do not consolidate, our single-class 

resecuritization trusts. 

As our single-class resecuritization securities pass through all of the cash flows of the underlying MBS directly to the holders 

of the securities, they are deemed to be substantially the same as the underlying MBS. Therefore, we account for purchases of 

our single-class resecuritization securities as an extinguishment of the underlying MBS debt and the sale of these securities as 

an issuance of the underlying MBS debt. 

Multi-Class Resecuritization Trusts 

Multi-class resecuritization trusts are trusts we create to issue multi-class Fannie Mae securities, including Real Estate 

Mortgage Investment Conduit (“REMIC”) and interest-only and principal-only strip securities, in which the cash flows of the 

underlying mortgage assets are divided, creating several classes of securities, each of which represents a beneficial ownership 

interest in a separate portion of cash flows. We guarantee to each multi-class resecuritization trust that we will supplement 

amounts received by the trusts as required to permit timely payments of principal and interest, as applicable, on the related 

Fannie Mae securities. However, we assume no additional credit risk in such a resecuritization transaction because the 

underlying assets are Fannie Mae MBS for which we have already provided a guaranty. Although we may be exposed to 

prepayment risk via our ownership of the securities issued by these trusts, we do not have the ability via our involvement 

with a multi-class resecuritization trust to impact the economic risk to which we are exposed. Therefore, we do not 

consolidate such a multi-class resecuritization trust until we hold a substantial portion of the outstanding beneficial interests 

that have been issued by the trust and are therefore considered the primary beneficiary of the trust. 

In contrast to our single-class resecuritization trust, the cash flows from the underlying MBS are divided between the debt 

securities issued by the multi-class resecuritization trust, and therefore, the debt issued by a multi-class resecuritization trust 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-15

is not substantially the same as the consolidated MBS debt. As a result, if a multi-class resecuritization trust is not 

consolidated, we account for the purchase and sale of such securities as the transfer of an investment security in accordance 

with the accounting guidance for the transfers of financial assets rather than the issuance or extinguishment of the related 

multi-class debt. However, if a multi-class resecuritization trust is consolidated, we account for the purchase of the securities 

issued by consolidated multi-class resecuritization trusts as an extinguishment of the debt issued by these trusts and the 

subsequent sale of such securities as the issuance of multi-class debt. 

When we do not consolidate a multi-class resecuritization trust, we recognize in our consolidated financial statements both 

our investment in the trust and the mortgage loans of the Fannie Mae MBS trusts that we consolidate that underlie the multiclass resecuritization trust. Additionally, we recognize the unsecured corporate debt issued to third parties to fund the 

purchase of our investments in the multi-class resecuritization trusts and the debt issued to third parties of the MBS trusts we 

consolidate that underlie the multi-class resecuritization trusts. This results in the recognition of interest income from 

investments in multi-class resecuritization trusts and interest expense from the unsecured debt issued to third parties to fund 

the purchase of the investments in multi-class resecuritization trusts, as well as interest income from the mortgage loans and 

interest expense from the debt issued to third parties from the MBS trusts we consolidate that underlie the multi-class 

resecuritization trusts. 

Transfers of Financial Assets 

We evaluate a transfer of financial assets to determine whether the transfer qualifies as a sale. If the transfer does not meet the 

criteria for sale treatment, the transferred assets remain in our consolidated balance sheets and we record a liability to the 

extent of any proceeds received in connection with such a transfer. Transfers of financial assets for which we surrender 

control of the transferred assets are recorded as sales. 

When a transfer that qualifies as a sale is completed, we derecognize all assets transferred and recognize all assets obtained 

and liabilities incurred at fair value. The difference between the carrying basis of the assets transferred and the fair value of 

the proceeds from the sale is recorded as a component of “Investment gains, net” in our consolidated statements of operations 

and comprehensive income. Retained interests are primarily derived from transfers associated with our portfolio 

securitizations in the form of Fannie Mae MBS, REMIC certificates, guaranty assets and master servicing assets (“MSAs”). 

We separately describe the subsequent accounting, as well as how we determine fair value, for our retained interests in the 

Fannie Mae MBS included in the “Investments in Securities” section of this note. 

We enter into repurchase agreements that involve contemporaneous trades to purchase and sell securities. These transactions 

are accounted for as secured financings since the transferor has not relinquished control over the transferred assets. These 

transactions are reported as securities purchased under agreements to resell and securities sold under agreements to 

repurchase in our consolidated balance sheets except for securities purchased under agreements to resell on an overnight 

basis, which are included in cash and cash equivalents in our consolidated balance sheets.

Cash and Cash Equivalents and Statements of Cash Flows 

Short-term investments that have a maturity at the date of acquisition of three months or less and are readily convertible to 

known amounts of cash are generally considered cash equivalents. We also include securities purchased under agreements to 

resell on an overnight basis in cash and cash equivalents in our consolidated balance sheets. We may pledge as collateral 

certain short-term investments classified as cash equivalents. 

In the presentation of our consolidated statements of cash flows, we present cash flows from derivatives that do not contain 

financing elements and mortgage loans held for sale at acquisition as operating activities. We present cash flows from federal 

funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell or similar arrangements as investing activities and cash flows 

from federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase as financing activities. We classify cash 

flows from trading securities based on their nature and purpose. Effective January 1, 2014, we classify all cash flows from 

trading securities (U.S. Treasury securities and mortgage-related securities purchased subsequent to December 31, 2013) as 

operating activities as we do not intend to hold the securities for investment. We classify cash flows from mortgage-related 

trading securities purchased prior to January 1, 2014 that we intend to hold for investment as investing activities.

For consolidated trusts, we classify cash flows related to mortgage loans held by our consolidated trusts as either investing 

activities (for principal repayments) or operating activities (for interest received from borrowers included as a component of 

our net income). Cash flows related to debt securities issued by consolidated trusts are classified as either financing activities 

(for repayments of principal to certificateholders) or operating activities (for interest payments to certificateholders included 

as a component of our net income). We distinguish between the payments and proceeds related to the debt of Fannie Mae and 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-16

the debt of consolidated trusts, as applicable. We present our non-cash activities in the consolidated statements of cash flows 

at the associated unpaid principal balance. 

Restricted Cash 

We and our servicers advance payments on delinquent loans to consolidated Fannie Mae MBS trusts. We recognize the cash 

advanced as “Restricted cash” in our consolidated balance sheets to the extent such amounts are due to, but have not yet been 

remitted to, the MBS certificateholders. In addition, when we or our servicers collect and hold cash that is due to certain 

Fannie Mae MBS trusts in advance of our requirement to remit these amounts to the trusts, we recognize the collected cash 

amounts as “Restricted cash.” 

We also recognize “Restricted cash” as a result of restrictions related to certain consolidated partnership funds as well as for 

certain collateral arrangements for which we do not have the right to use the cash. 

Investments in Securities

Securities Classified as Available-for-Sale or Trading

We classify and account for our securities as either available-for-sale (“AFS”) or trading. We measure AFS securities at fair 

value in our consolidated balance sheets, with unrealized gains and losses included in “Accumulated other comprehensive 

income” (“AOCI”), net of income taxes. We recognize realized gains and losses on AFS securities when securities are sold. 

We calculate the gains and losses using the specific identification method and record them in “Investment gains, net” in our 

consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. We measure trading securities at fair value in our 

consolidated balance sheets with unrealized and realized gains and losses included as a component of “Fair value gains 

(losses), net” in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. We include interest and dividends on 

securities in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. Interest income includes the amortization 

of cost basis adjustments, including premiums and discounts, recognized as a yield adjustment using the interest method over 

the contractual term of the security. When we receive multiple deliveries of securities on the same day that are backed by the 

same pools of loans, we calculate the specific cost of each security as the average price of the trades that delivered those 

securities. As of December 31, 2015, we did not have any securities classified as held-to-maturity, although we may elect to 

do so in the future. 

Fannie Mae MBS included in “Investments in securities”

When we own Fannie Mae MBS issued by unconsolidated trusts, we do not derecognize any components of the guaranty 

assets, guaranty obligations, or any other outstanding recorded amounts associated with the guaranty transaction because our 

contractual obligation to the MBS trust remains in force until the trust is liquidated. We determine the fair value of Fannie 

Mae MBS based on observable market prices because most Fannie Mae MBS are actively traded. Fannie Mae MBS receive 

high credit quality ratings primarily because of our guaranty. The fair value of the guaranty obligation, net of deferred profit, 

associated with Fannie Mae MBS included in “Investments in securities” approximates the fair value of the credit risk that 

exists on these Fannie Mae MBS absent our guaranty. We disclose the aggregate amount of Fannie Mae MBS held as 

“Investments in securities” in our consolidated balance sheets. The unamortized obligation to stand ready to perform over the 

term of our guaranty and any incurred credit losses that relate to Fannie Mae MBS held as “Investments in securities” is 

included in “Other liabilities.” Upon subsequent sale of a Fannie Mae MBS, we continue to account for any outstanding 

recorded amounts associated with the guaranty transaction on the same basis of accounting as prior to the sale of Fannie Mae 

MBS, as no new assets were retained and no new liabilities have been assumed upon the subsequent sale. The fair value of 

our guaranty obligations associated with the Fannie Mae MBS included in “Investments in securities” was $488 million and 

$797 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. These Fannie Mae MBS consist primarily of private-label 

wraps where our guaranty arrangement is with an unconsolidated MBS trust.

Other-Than-Temporary Impairment of Debt Securities

We evaluate AFS securities for other-than-temporary impairment (“OTTI”) on a quarterly basis. OTTI is considered to have 

occurred when the fair value of a debt security is below its amortized cost basis and we intend to sell or it is more likely than 

not that we will be required to sell the security before recovery. In such cases, we recognize in “Investment gains, net” in our 

consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income the entire difference between the amortized cost basis of 

the security and its fair value. OTTI is also considered to have occurred if we do not expect to recover the entire amortized 

cost basis of a debt security even if we do not intend to sell the security or it is not more likely than not we will be required to 

sell the security before recovery. We separate the difference between the amortized cost basis of the security and its fair value 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-17

into the amount representing the credit loss, which we recognize in “Investment gains, net” in our consolidated statements of 

operations and comprehensive income, and the amount related to all other factors, which we recognize in “Other 

comprehensive income (loss),” net of taxes.

We consider guarantees, insurance contracts or other credit enhancements (such as collateral) in determining our best 

estimate of cash flows expected to be collected only if (1) such guarantees, insurance contracts or other credit enhancements 

provide for payments to be made solely to reimburse us for failure of the issuer to satisfy its required payment obligations; 

(2) such guarantees, insurance contracts or other credit enhancements are contractually attached to the security; and (3) 

collection of the amounts receivable under these agreements is deemed probable. Guarantees, insurance contracts or other 

credit enhancements are considered contractually attached if they are part of and trade with the security upon transfer of the 

security to a third party.

In periods after we recognize OTTI of debt securities, we use the prospective interest method to recognize interest income. 

Under the prospective interest method, we calculate a new effective yield for subsequent recognition of interest income and 

measurement of impairment when we determine that there has been a significant increase in expected or actual cash flows. 

We consider a significant increase in cash flows to be at least a 10% increase over two consecutive quarters of the expected or 

actual cash flows. We calculate the new effective yield by using the new cost basis and the significantly increased actual or 

expected cash flows.

Mortgage Loans

Loans Held for Sale

When we acquire mortgage loans that we intend to sell or securitize via trusts that will not be consolidated, we classify the 

loans as HFS. We report HFS loans at the lower of cost or fair value. Any excess of an HFS loan’s cost over its fair value is 

recognized as a valuation allowance, with changes in the valuation allowance recognized as “Investment gains, net” in our 

consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. We recognize interest income on HFS loans on an accrual 

basis, unless we determine that the ultimate collection of contractual principal or interest payments in full is not reasonably 

assured. Purchased premiums, discounts and other cost basis adjustments on HFS loans are deferred upon loan acquisition, 

included in the cost basis of the loan, and not amortized. We determine any lower of cost or fair value adjustment on HFS 

loans at an individual loan level. 

In the event that we reclassify HFI loans to HFS loans, we record the loans at lower of cost or fair value on the date of 

reclassification. We recognize any lower of cost or fair value adjustment recognized upon reclassification through the 

provision for credit losses.

Loans Held for Investment

When we acquire mortgage loans that we have the ability and the intent to hold for the foreseeable future or until maturity, 

we classify the loans as HFI. When we consolidate a trust, we recognize the loans underlying the trust in our consolidated 

balance sheets. The trusts do not have the ability to sell mortgage loans and the use of such loans is limited exclusively to the 

settlement of obligations of the trusts. Therefore, mortgages acquired when we have the intent to securitize via trusts that are 

consolidated will generally be classified as HFI in our consolidated balance sheets both prior to and subsequent to their 

securitization. 

We report HFI loans at the unpaid principal balance, net of unamortized premiums and discounts, other cost basis 

adjustments, and allowance for loan losses. We recognize interest income on HFI loans on an accrual basis using the interest 

method over the contractual life of the loan, including the amortization of any deferred cost basis adjustments, such as the 

premium or discount at acquisition, unless we determine that the ultimate collection of contractual principal or interest 

payments in full is not reasonably assured. 

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 loans 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 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-18

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.

Restructured Loans

A modification to the contractual terms of a loan that results in granting a concession to a borrower experiencing financial 

difficulties is considered a troubled debt restructuring (“TDR”). Our loss mitigation programs primarily include modifications 

that result in the capitalization of past due amounts in combination with interest rate reductions and/or the extension of the 

loan’s maturity date. Such restructurings are granted to borrowers in financial difficulty on either a permanent or contingent 

basis, as in the case of modifications with a trial period. We consider these types of loan restructurings to be TDRs. 

We do not include principal or past due interest forgiveness as part of our loss mitigation programs, and as a result, we do not 

charge off any outstanding principal or accrued interest amounts at the time of loan modification. We believe that the loan 

underwriting activities we perform as a part of our loan modification process coupled with the borrower’s successful 

performance during any required trial period provide us reasonable assurance regarding the collectibility of the principal and 

interest due in accordance with the loan’s modified terms, which include any past due interest amounts that are capitalized as 

principal at the time of modification. As such, the loan is returned to accrual status when the loan modification is completed 

(i.e., at the end of the trial period), and we accrue interest thereafter in accordance with our interest accrual policy. If the loan 

was on nonaccrual status prior to entering the trial period, it remains on nonaccrual status until the borrower demonstrates 

performance via the trial period and the modification is finalized. 

In addition to these loan modifications, we also engage in other loss mitigation activities with troubled borrowers, which 

include repayment plans, forbearance arrangements, and the capitalization only of past due amounts. Repayment plans and 

forbearance arrangements are informal agreements with the borrower that do not result in the legal modification of the loan. 

For all of these activities, we consider the deferral or capitalization of three or fewer missed payments to represent only an 

insignificant delay, and thus not a TDR. If we defer or capitalize more than three missed payments, the delay is no longer 

considered insignificant, and the restructuring is accounted for as a TDR. 

We measure impairment of a loan restructured in a TDR individually based on the excess of the recorded investment in the 

loan over the present value of the expected future cash inflows discounted at the loan’s original effective interest rate. Costs 

incurred to complete a TDR are expensed as incurred. However, when foreclosure is probable on an individually impaired 

loan, we measure impairment based on the difference between our recorded investment in the loan and the fair value of the 

underlying property, adjusted for the estimated costs to sell the property and estimated insurance or other proceeds we expect 

to receive. 

Allowance for Loan Losses and Reserve for Guaranty Losses

Our allowance for loan losses is a valuation allowance that reflects an estimate of incurred credit losses related to our 

recorded investment in both single-family and multifamily HFI loans. This population includes both HFI loans held by 

Fannie Mae and by consolidated Fannie Mae MBS trusts. When calculating our allowance for loan losses, we consider only 

our net recorded investment in the loan at the balance sheet date, which includes the loan’s unpaid principal balance and any 

applicable 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 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, upon the redesignation of nonperforming loans from HFI to HFS and pursuant to the 

charge-off provisions of the Advisory Bulletin.

The reserve for guaranty losses is a liability account which is a component of “Other liabilities” in our consolidated balance 

sheets that reflects an estimate of incurred credit losses related to our guaranty to each unconsolidated Fannie Mae MBS trust 

that we will supplement amounts received by the Fannie Mae MBS trust as required to permit timely payments of principal 

and interest on the related Fannie Mae MBS and our agreements to purchase credit-impaired loans from lenders under the 

terms of our long-term standby commitments. As a result, the reserve for guaranty losses considers not only the principal and 

interest due on the loan at the current balance sheet date, but also any additional interest payments due to the trust from the 

current balance sheet date until the point of loan acquisition or foreclosure. The reserve for guaranty losses was $639 million

and $1.2 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-19

We recognize incurred losses by recording a charge to the provision for guaranty losses, which is a component of “Benefit for 

credit losses,” in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

Single-Family Loans

We recognize credit losses related to groups of similar single-family HFI loans that are not individually impaired when 

(1) available information as of each balance sheet date indicates that it is probable a loss has occurred and (2) the amount of 

the loss can be reasonably estimated. We aggregate such loans, based on similar risk characteristics, for purposes of 

estimating incurred credit losses and establish a collective single-family loss reserve using an econometric model that derives 

an overall loss reserve estimate. The estimate takes into account multiple factors which include but are not limited to 

origination year, loan product type, mark-to-market loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratio, and delinquency status. Once loans are 

aggregated, there typically is not a single, distinct event that would result in an individual loan or pool of loans being 

impaired. In determining our collective reserve, 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 that provide loan level loss coverage and are either contractually attached to a loan or that were entered into 

contemporaneously with and in contemplation of a guaranty or loan purchase transaction. We use recent regional historical 

sales and appraisal information, including the sales of our own foreclosed properties, to develop our loss severity estimates 

for all loan categories. Our allowance calculation also incorporates a loss confirmation period (the anticipated time lag 

between a credit loss event and the confirmation of the credit loss resulting from that event) to ensure our allowance estimate 

captures credit losses that have been incurred as of the balance sheet date but have not been confirmed. 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. 

We record charge-offs as a reduction to the allowance for loan losses or reserve for guaranty 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, upon the redesignation of nonperforming loans from HFI to HFS and pursuant to the 

charge-off provisions of the Advisory Bulletin. The excess of a loan’s unpaid principal balance, accrued interest, and any 

applicable cost basis adjustments (“our total exposure”) over the fair value of the assets is treated as a charge-off loss that is 

deducted from the allowance for loan losses or reserve for guaranty losses. The amount charged off also considers estimated 

proceeds from primary mortgage insurance or other credit enhancements that are either contractually attached to a loan or 

that were entered into contemporaneously with and in contemplation of a guaranty or loan purchase transaction as a recovery 

of our total exposure, up to the amount of loss recognized as a charge-off. We record additional proceeds from primary 

mortgage insurance and credit enhancements in excess of our total exposure as a recovery of any forgone contractually past 

due interest, and then as an offset to the expenses recorded in “Foreclosed property expense (income)” in our consolidated 

statements of operations and comprehensive income when received. 

Individually Impaired Single-Family Loans 

Individually impaired single-family loans currently include those restructured in a TDR and acquired credit-impaired loans. 

We consider a loan to be impaired when, based on current information, it is probable that we will not receive all amounts due, 

including interest, in accordance with the contractual terms of the loan agreement. When making our assessment as to 

whether a loan is impaired, we also take into account more than insignificant delays in payment and shortfalls in amounts 

received. Determination of whether a delay in payment or shortfall in amount is more than insignificant requires 

management’s judgment as to the facts and circumstances surrounding the loan. 

Our measurement of impairment on an individually impaired loan follows the method that is most consistent with our 

expectations of recovery of our recorded investment in the loan. When a loan has been restructured, we measure impairment 

using a cash flow analysis discounted at the loan’s original effective interest rate. 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 on a discounted basis and adjusted 

for estimated proceeds from mortgage, flood, or hazard insurance or similar sources. For individually impaired loans that we 

believe are probable of foreclosure, we take into consideration the sales prices of foreclosed properties in determining the 

value of the underlying real estate collateral. 

We use internal models to project cash flows used to assess impairment of individually impaired loans, and generally update 

the market and loan characteristic inputs we use in these models monthly, using month-end data. Market inputs include 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-20

information such as interest rates, volatility and spreads, while loan characteristic inputs include information such as mark-tomarket LTV ratios and delinquency status. The loan characteristic inputs are key factors that affect the predicted rate of 

default for loans evaluated for impairment through our internal cash flow models. For example, loans with an unsuccessful 

trial modification, which are often accompanied by high delinquency rates, have much higher predicted default rates 

compared to performing loans with completed modifications, particularly those with a significant payment reduction in the 

borrower’s required monthly payment. We evaluate the reasonableness of our models by comparing the results with actual 

performance and our assessment of current market conditions. In addition, we review our models at least annually for 

reasonableness and predictive ability in accordance with our corporate model review policy. Accordingly, we believe the 

projected cash flows generated by our models that we use to assess impairment appropriately reflect the expected future 

performance of the loans.

Multifamily Loans

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 

underlying collateral less estimated costs to sell the property. We establish a collective multifamily 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. 

We categorize loan credit risk based on relevant observable data about a borrower’s ability to pay, including multifamily 

market economic fundamentals, review of available current borrower financial information, operating statements on the 

underlying collateral, current debt service coverage ratios (“DSCRs”), historical payment experience, estimates of the current 

collateral values and other related credit documentation. For each risk category, certain observed default probability and loss 

severity (in event of default) factors, based on historical performance of loans in the same risk category, are applied against 

our recorded investment in the loans to determine an appropriate allowance. Such performance data reflect historical 

delinquencies and charge-offs, as well as loan size. In addition, we consider any credit enhancements such as letters of credit 

or loss sharing arrangements with our lenders. 

Advances to Lenders 

Advances to lenders represent our payments of cash in exchange for the receipt of mortgage loans from lenders in a transfer 

that is accounted for as a secured lending arrangement. These transfers primarily occur when we provide early funding to 

lenders for loans that they will subsequently either sell to us or securitize into a Fannie Mae MBS that they will deliver to us. 

We individually negotiate early lender funding advances with our lender customers. Early lender funding advances have 

terms up to 60 days and earn a short-term market rate of interest. 

We report cash outflows from advances to lenders as an investing activity in our consolidated statements of cash flows. 

Settlements of the advances to lenders, other than through lender repurchases of loans, are not collected in cash, but rather in 

the receipt of either loans or Fannie Mae MBS. Accordingly, this activity is reflected as a non-cash transfer in our 

consolidated statements of cash flows in the line item entitled “Transfers from advances to lenders to loans held for 

investment of consolidated trusts.” 

Acquired Property, Net 

We recognize foreclosed property (i.e., “Acquired property, net”) upon the earlier of the loan foreclosure event or when we 

take physical possession of the property (i.e., through a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure transaction). We initially measure 

foreclosed property at its fair value less its estimated costs to sell. We treat any excess of our recorded investment in the loan 

over the fair value less estimated costs to sell the property as a charge-off to the “Allowance for loan losses.” Any excess of 

the fair value less estimated costs to sell the property over our recorded investment in the loan is recognized first to recover 

any forgone, contractually due interest, then to “Foreclosed property expense (income)” in our consolidated statements of 

operations and comprehensive income. 

We classify foreclosed properties as HFS when we intend to sell the property and the following conditions are met at either 

acquisition or within a relatively short period thereafter: we are actively marketing the property and it is available for 

immediate sale in its current condition such that the sale is reasonably expected to take place within one year. We report these 

properties at the lower of their carrying amount or fair value less estimated selling costs. We do not depreciate these 

properties. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-21

We recognize a loss for any subsequent write-down of the property to its fair value less its estimated costs to sell through a 

valuation allowance with an offsetting charge to “Foreclosed property expense (income)” in our consolidated statements of 

operations and comprehensive income. We recognize a recovery for any subsequent increase in fair value less estimated costs 

to sell up to the cumulative loss previously recognized through the valuation allowance. We recognize gains or losses on sales 

of foreclosed property through “Foreclosed property expense (income)” in our consolidated statements of operations and 

comprehensive income. 

Properties that do not meet the criteria to be classified as HFS are classified as held for use and are recorded in “Other assets” 

in our consolidated balance sheets. These properties are depreciated and are evaluated for impairment when circumstances 

indicate that the carrying amount of the property is no longer recoverable. 

Commitments to Purchase and Sell Mortgage Loans and Securities 

We enter into commitments to purchase and sell mortgage-backed securities and to purchase single-family and multifamily 

mortgage loans. Certain commitments to purchase or sell mortgage-backed securities and to purchase single-family mortgage 

loans are generally accounted for as derivatives. Our commitments to purchase multifamily loans are not accounted for as 

derivatives because they do not meet the criteria for net settlement. 

When derivative purchase commitments settle, we include the fair value on the settlement date in the cost basis of the loan or 

unconsolidated security we purchase. When derivative commitments to sell securities settle, we include the fair value of the 

commitment on the settlement date in the cost basis of the security we sell. Purchases and sales of securities issued by our 

consolidated MBS trusts are treated as extinguishment or issuance of debt, respectively. For commitments to purchase and 

sell securities issued by our consolidated MBS trusts, we recognize the fair value of the commitment on the settlement date as 

a component of debt extinguishment gains and losses or in the cost basis of the debt issued, respectively. 

Regular-way securities trades provide for delivery of securities within the time generally established by regulations or 

conventions in the market in which the trade occurs and are exempt from application of derivative accounting. Commitments 

to purchase or sell securities that we account for on a trade-date basis are also exempt from the derivative accounting 

requirements. We record the purchase and sale of an existing security on its trade date when the commitment to purchase or 

sell the existing security settles within the period of time that is customary in the market in which those trades take place. 

Additionally, contracts for the forward purchase or sale of when-issued and to-be-announced (“TBA”) securities are exempt 

from the derivative accounting requirements if there is no other way to purchase or sell that security, delivery of that security 

and settlement will occur within the shortest period possible for that type of security, and it is probable at inception and 

throughout the term of the individual contract that physical delivery of the security will occur. Since our commitments for the 

purchase of when-issued and TBA securities can be net settled and we do not document that physical settlement is probable, 

we account for all such commitments as derivatives. 

Derivative Instruments 

We recognize all derivatives as either assets or liabilities in our consolidated balance sheets at their fair value on a trade date 

basis. We report derivatives in a gain position after offsetting by counterparty in “Other assets” and derivatives in a loss 

position after offsetting by counterparty in “Other liabilities” in our consolidated balance sheets. 

We offset the carrying amounts of certain derivatives that are in gain positions and loss positions with the same counterparty 

as well as cash collateral receivables and payables associated with derivative positions under master netting arrangements. 

We offset these amounts only when we have the legal right to offset under the contract and we have met all of the offsetting 

conditions.

We evaluate financial instruments that we purchase or issue and other financial and non-financial contracts for embedded 

derivatives. To identify embedded derivatives that we must account for separately, we determine if: (1) the economic 

characteristics of the embedded derivative are not clearly and closely related to the economic characteristics of the financial 

instrument or other contract (i.e., the host contract); (2) the financial instrument or other contract itself is not already 

measured at fair value with changes in fair value included in earnings; and (3) a separate instrument with the same terms as 

the embedded derivative would meet the definition of a derivative. If the embedded derivative meets all three of these 

conditions we elect to carry the hybrid contract in its entirety at fair value with changes in fair value recorded in earnings. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-22

Collateral 

We enter into various transactions where we pledge and accept collateral, the most common of which are our derivative 

transactions. Required collateral levels vary depending on the credit rating and type of counterparty. We also pledge and 

receive collateral under our repurchase and reverse repurchase agreements. In order to reduce potential exposure to 

repurchase counterparties, a third-party custodian typically maintains the collateral and any margin. We monitor the fair value 

of the collateral received from our counterparties, and we may require additional collateral from those counterparties, as we 

deem appropriate. 

Cash Collateral

We record cash collateral accepted from a counterparty that we have the right to use as “Cash and cash equivalents” and cash 

collateral accepted from a counterparty that we do not have the right to use as “Restricted cash” in our consolidated balance 

sheets. We net our obligation to return cash collateral pledged to us against the fair value of derivatives in a gain position 

recorded in “Other assets” in our consolidated balance sheets as part of our counterparty netting calculation. 

For derivative positions with the same counterparty under master netting arrangements where we pledge cash collateral, we 

remove it from “Cash and cash equivalents” and net the right to receive it against the fair value of derivatives in a loss 

position recorded in “Other liabilities” in our consolidated balance sheets as a part of our counterparty netting calculation. 

Non-Cash Collateral

We classify securities pledged to counterparties as either “Investments in securities” or “Cash and cash equivalents” in our 

consolidated balance sheets. Securities pledged to counterparties that have been consolidated with the underlying assets 

recognized as loans are included as “Mortgage loans” in our consolidated balance sheets. 

Our liability to third party holders of Fannie Mae MBS that arises as the result of a consolidation of a securitization trust is 

collateralized by the underlying loans and/or mortgage-related securities. 

Debt 

Our consolidated balance sheets contain debt of Fannie Mae as well as debt of consolidated trusts. We report debt issued by 

us as “Debt of Fannie Mae” and by consolidated trusts as “Debt of consolidated trusts.” Debt issued by us represents debt that 

we issue to third parties to fund our general business activities and our credit risk-sharing securities. The debt of consolidated 

trusts represents the amount of Fannie Mae MBS issued from such trusts which is held by third-party certificateholders and 

prepayable without penalty at any time. We report deferred items, including premiums, discounts and other cost basis 

adjustments, as adjustments to the related debt balances in our consolidated balance sheets. We remeasure the carrying 

amount, accrued interest and basis adjustments of debt denominated in a foreign currency into U.S. dollars using foreign 

exchange spot rates as of the balance sheet dates and report any associated gains or losses as a component of “Fair value 

gains (losses), net” in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. 

We classify interest expense as either short-term or long-term based on the contractual maturity of the related debt. We 

recognize the amortization of premiums, discounts and other cost basis adjustments through interest expense using the 

effective interest method usually over the contractual term of the debt. Amortization of premiums, discounts and other cost 

basis adjustments begins at the time of debt issuance. We remeasure interest expense for debt denominated in a foreign 

currency into U.S. dollars using the daily spot rates. The difference in rates arising from the month-end spot exchange rate 

used to calculate the interest accruals and the daily spot rates used to record the interest expense is a foreign currency 

transaction gain or loss for the period and is recognized as a component of “Fair value gains (losses), net” in our consolidated 

statements of operations and comprehensive income. 

When we purchase a Fannie Mae MBS issued from a consolidated single-class securitization trust, we extinguish the related 

debt of the consolidated trust as the MBS debt is no longer owed to a third-party. We record debt extinguishment gains or 

losses related to debt of consolidated trusts to the extent that the purchase price of the MBS does not equal the carrying value 

of the related consolidated MBS debt reported in our consolidated balance sheets (including unamortized premiums, 

discounts and other cost basis adjustments) at the time of purchase. 

Income Taxes

We recognize deferred tax assets and liabilities based on the differences in the book and tax bases of assets and liabilities. We 

measure deferred tax assets and liabilities using enacted tax rates that are applicable to the period(s) that the differences are 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-23

expected to reverse. We adjust deferred tax assets and liabilities for the effects of changes in tax laws and rates in the period 

of enactment. We recognize investment and other tax credits through our effective tax rate calculation assuming that we will 

be able to realize the full benefit of the credits. We reduce our deferred tax assets by an allowance if, based on the weight of 

available positive and negative evidence, it is more likely than not (a probability of greater than 50%) that we will not realize 

some portion, or all, of the deferred tax asset. 

We account for uncertain tax positions using a two-step approach whereby we recognize an income tax benefit if, based on 

the technical merits of a tax position, it is more likely than not that the tax position would be sustained upon examination by 

the taxing authority, which includes all related appeals and litigation. We then measure the recognized tax benefit based on 

the largest amount of tax benefit that is greater than 50% likely to be realized upon settlement with the taxing authority, 

considering all information available at the reporting date. We recognize interest expense and penalties on unrecognized tax 

benefits as “Other expenses, net” in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. 

Earnings (Loss) per Share

Earnings (loss) per share (“EPS”) is presented for both basic EPS and diluted EPS. We compute basic EPS by dividing net 

income (loss) attributable to common stockholders by the weighted-average number of shares of common stock outstanding 

during the period. In addition to common shares outstanding, the computation of basic EPS includes instruments for which 

the holder has (or is deemed to have) the present rights as of the end of the reporting period to share in current period 

earnings (loss) with common stockholders (i.e., participating securities and common shares that are currently issuable for 

little or no cost to the holder). We include in the denominator of our basic EPS computation the weighted-average number of 

shares of common stock that would be issued upon the full exercise of the warrant issued to Treasury. Diluted EPS includes 

all the components of basic EPS, plus the dilutive effect of common stock equivalents such as convertible securities and stock 

options, but excludes those common stock equivalents from the calculation of diluted EPS when the effect of inclusion, 

assessed individually, would be anti-dilutive. The calculation of income available to common stockholders and EPS is based 

on the underlying premise that all income after payment of dividends on preferred shares is available to and will be 

distributed to the common stockholders. However, as a result of our conservatorship status and the terms of the senior 

preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury, no amounts are available to distribute as dividends to common or 

preferred stockholders (other than to Treasury as holder of the senior preferred stock).

Compensatory Fees

We charge our primary servicers a compensatory fee for servicing delays within their control when they fail to comply with 

our established loss mitigation and foreclosure timelines. Compensatory fees are intended to compensate us for damages 

attributed to such servicing delays and to emphasize the importance of servicer performance.

We recognize a compensatory fee receivable when the amounts are chargeable per our guidelines and are considered 

reasonably assured of collection. We subsequently establish a valuation allowance for any amounts we estimate to be 

uncollectible. If such fees are not reasonably assured of collection, we recognize them on a cash basis when received. The 

income associated with these fees is recognized as a component of “Foreclosed property expense (income)” in our 

consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

Fee and Other Income

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

the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, we recognized $21 million, $4.8 billion and $2.2 billion, respectively, in 

“Fee and other income” in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income resulting from settlement 

agreements resolving certain lawsuits relating to private-label securities (“PLS”) sold to us. 

Employee Retirement Benefits

Our defined benefit pension plans were amended in 2013 to cease the accrual of benefits for all employees and the plans were 

subsequently terminated, effective December 31, 2013. The additional cost of the termination, including the estimated 

premium required to purchase annuity contracts, was recognized in “Other comprehensive income (loss)” in our consolidated 

statements of operations and comprehensive income for 2013.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-24

During 2015, we settled our defined pension benefit obligations. We transferred plan assets to an annuity provider and 

distributed lump sum payments to participants based on their elections. We made a cash contribution of $102 million to settle 

the plans. 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 consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income for the year ended December 31, 2015.

New Accounting Guidance

In May 2014, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued guidance on revenue from contracts with 

customers. The standard outlines a single model for entities to use in accounting for revenue arising from contracts with 

customers and supersedes most current revenue recognition guidance. The following contracts with customers are excluded 

from the scope of the new standard and will continue to be accounted for under existing guidance: leases, insurance, financial 

instruments (e.g., receivables, investments, liabilities, debt and derivatives) and guarantees. The new guidance is effective for 

us on January 1, 2018. We have evaluated this guidance and determined it will not have a material impact on our consolidated 

financial statements.

In February 2015, the FASB issued guidance regarding consolidation of legal entities such as limited partnerships, limited 

liability corporations and securitization structures. The guidance removes the specialized consolidation model surrounding 

limited partnerships and similar entities and amends the requirements that such entities must meet to qualify as voting interest 

entities. In addition, the guidance eliminates certain of the conditions for evaluating whether fees paid to a decision maker or 

service provider represent a variable interest. The new guidance is effective for us on January 1, 2016. We have evaluated this 

guidance and determined it will not have a material impact on our consolidated financial statements.

In January 2016, the FASB issued guidance which makes limited amendments to the accounting related to the classification 

and measurement of financial instruments. The new guidance revises the accounting requirements related to (1) the 

classification and measurement of investments in equity securities and (2) the presentation of certain fair value changes for 

financial liabilities measured at fair value. It also amends certain disclosure requirements associated with the fair value of 

financial instruments. The new guidance is effective for us on January 1, 2018. We have evaluated this guidance and 

determined it will not have a material impact on our 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.

Types of VIEs

Securitization Trusts

Under our lender swap and portfolio securitization transactions, mortgage loans are transferred to a trust specifically for the 

purpose of issuing a single class of guaranteed securities that are collateralized by the underlying mortgage loans. The trust’s 

permitted activities include receiving the transferred assets, issuing beneficial interests, establishing the guaranty and 

servicing the underlying mortgage loans. In our capacity as issuer, master servicer, trustee and guarantor, we earn fees for our 

obligations to each trust. Additionally, we may retain or purchase a portion of the securities issued by each trust. We have 

securitized mortgage loans since 1981.

In our structured securitization transactions, we earn fees for assisting lenders and dealers with the design and issuance of 

structured mortgage-related securities. The trusts created in these transactions have permitted activities that are similar to 

those for our lender swap and portfolio securitization transactions. The assets of these trusts may include mortgage-related 

securities and/or mortgage loans. The trusts created for Fannie Megas issue single-class securities while the trusts created for 

REMIC, grantor trust and stripped mortgage-backed securities (“SMBS”) issue single-class and multi-class securities, the 

latter of which separate the cash flows from underlying assets into separately tradable interests. Our obligations and 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-25

continued involvement in these trusts are similar to those described for lender swap and portfolio securitization transactions. 

We have securitized mortgage assets in structured transactions since 1986.

We also invest in mortgage-backed securities that have been issued via private-label trusts. These trusts are structured to 

provide investors with a beneficial interest in a pool of receivables or other financial assets, typically mortgage loans. The 

trusts act as vehicles to allow loan originators to securitize assets. Securities are structured from the underlying pool of assets 

to provide for varying degrees of risk. The originators of the financial assets or the underwriters of the transaction create the 

trusts and typically own the residual interest in the trusts’ assets. Our involvement in these entities is typically limited to our 

recorded investment in the beneficial interests that we have purchased. We have invested in these vehicles since 1987.

Limited Partnerships

We have historically made equity investments in various limited partnerships that sponsor affordable housing projects 

utilizing the low-income housing tax credit pursuant to Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code. The purpose of these 

investments is to increase the supply of affordable housing in the United States and to serve communities in need. In addition, 

our investments in LIHTC partnerships generate both tax credits and net operating losses that may reduce our federal income 

tax liability. Our LIHTC investments primarily represent limited partnership interests in entities that have been organized by 

a fund manager who acts as the general partner. These fund investments seek out equity investments in LIHTC operating 

partnerships that have been established to identify, develop and operate multifamily housing that is leased to qualifying 

residential tenants.

We no longer recognize net operating losses or impairment on our LIHTC partnership investments as the carrying value is 

zero. We did not make any LIHTC investments in 2015, 2014 or 2013, other than pursuant to existing prior commitments.

Consolidated VIEs

If an entity is a VIE, we consider whether our variable interest in that entity causes us to be the primary beneficiary. The 

primary beneficiary of the VIE is required to consolidate and account for the assets, liabilities and noncontrolling interests of 

the VIE in its consolidated financial statements. An enterprise is deemed to be the primary beneficiary when the enterprise 

has the power to direct the activities of the VIE that most significantly impact the entity’s economic performance and 

exposure to benefits and/or losses could potentially be significant to the entity. In general, the investors in the obligations of 

consolidated VIEs have recourse only to the assets of those VIEs and do not have recourse to us, except where we provide a 

guaranty to the VIE.

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.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-26

As of December 31,

2015 2014

(Dollars in millions)

Assets and liabilities recorded in our consolidated balance sheets related to mortgagebacked trusts:

Assets:

Trading securities:

Fannie Mae securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,704 $ 4,790

Non-Fannie Mae securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,596 7,073

Total trading securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,300 11,863

Available-for-sale securities:

Fannie Mae securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,936 5,043

Non-Fannie Mae securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14,644 22,776

Total available-for-sale securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18,580 27,819

Other assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 111

Other liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (827) (1,440)

Net carrying amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 28,153 $ 38,353

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 $34 billion

and $45 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The total assets of our unconsolidated mortgage-backed 

trusts were approximately $220 billion and $250 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The total assets of our unconsolidated limited partnership investments were $4.9 billion and $5.8 billion as of December 31, 

2015 and 2014, respectively.

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 years ended December 31, 

2015, 2014 and 2013, the unpaid principal balance of portfolio securitizations was $212.0 billion, $160.4 billion and $228.5 

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 December 31, 2015, the unpaid principal balance of retained interests was $5.5 billion

and its related fair value was $6.8 billion. The unpaid principal balance of retained interests was $6.3 billion and its related 

fair value was $7.6 billion as of December 31, 2014. For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, the principal 

and interest received on retained interests was $1.2 billion, $1.5 billion and $1.7 billion, 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 $1.6 billion

and $1.8 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, 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 HFI or 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 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-27

fair value and record valuation changes in our 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 December 31,

2015 2014

Of Fannie

Mae

Of

Consolidated

Trusts Total

Of Fannie

Mae

Of

Consolidated

Trusts Total

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 238,237 $ 2,574,174 $2,812,411 $ 262,116 $ 2,569,884 $2,832,000

Multifamily. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,099 185,243 198,342 23,255 164,045 187,300

Total unpaid principal balance of

mortgage loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 251,336 2,759,417 3,010,753 285,371 2,733,929 3,019,300

Cost basis and fair value adjustments, net . . (12,939) 49,781 36,842 (12,705) 48,440 35,735

Allowance for loan losses for loans held for

investment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (26,510) (1,441) (27,951) (33,117) (2,424) (35,541)

Total mortgage loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 211,887 $ 2,807,757 $3,019,644 $ 239,549 $ 2,779,945 $3,019,494

For the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, we redesignated loans with a carrying value of $8.6 billion, $2.2 

billion and $1.3 billion, respectively, from HFI to HFS. For the year ended December 31, 2014, we redesignated loans with a 

carrying value of $285 million from HFS to HFI. We sold loans with an unpaid principal balance of $3.6 billion, $1.9 billion

and $1.2 billion, respectively, during the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013. 

The recorded investment of single-family mortgage loans for which formal foreclosure proceedings are in process was $25.6 

billion as of December 31, 2015. 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. 

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 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
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-28

As of December 31, 2014

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 . . . . . . . . . . $ 29,130 $ 8,396 $ 38,248 $ 75,774 $ 2,580,446 $ 2,656,220 $ 55 $ 46,556

Government(2). . . . . 63 26 305 394 44,927 45,321 305 —

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,094 1,414 11,603 17,111 95,650 112,761 8 13,007

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,520 516 3,763 5,799 38,460 44,259 6 4,259

Total single-family 34,807 10,352 53,919 99,078 2,759,483 2,858,561 374 63,822

Multifamily(3). . . . . . . 60 NA 89 149 189,084 189,233 — 823

Total . . . . . . . . . $ 34,867 $ 10,352 $ 54,008 $ 99,227 $ 2,948,567 $ 3,047,794 $ 374 $ 64,645

__________

(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 December 31,

2015(1) 2014(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% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,228,533 $ 59,000 $21,274 $2,156,165 $ 60,851 $22,558

Greater than 80% and less than or equal to 90% . . . . . . . . . . . 250,373 12,588 4,936 261,709 15,151 6,046

Greater than 90% and less than or equal to 100% . . . . . . . . . . 122,939 9,345 3,861 140,778 12,490 5,236

Greater than 100% and less than or equal to 110% . . . . . . . . . 27,875 6,231 2,596 43,014 8,998 3,900

Greater than 110% and less than or equal to 120%. . . . . . . . . 14,625 3,730 1,592 23,439 6,033 2,615

Greater than 120% and less than or equal to 125%. . . . . . . . . 4,520 1,260 545 7,529 2,114 904

Greater than 125% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13,328 3,947 1,606 23,586 7,124 3,000

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $2,662,193 $ 96,101 $36,410 $2,656,220 $112,761 $44,259

__________

(1) Excludes $40.8 billion and $45.3 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, 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.

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. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-29

As of December 31,

2015 2014

(Dollars in millions)

Credit risk profile by internally assigned grade:(1)

Pass. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 194,132 $ 182,079

Special Mention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,202 3,070

Substandard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,833 3,842

Doubtful . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 242

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 200,174 $ 189,233

__________

(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).

Individually Impaired Loans

Individually impaired loans include 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. 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 December 31,

2015 2014

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Total 

Recorded 

Investment

Related

Allowance

for Loan

Losses

Unpaid

Principal

Balance

Total 

Recorded 

Investment

Related

Allowance

for Loan

Losses

Related 

Allowance 

for Accrued 

Interest 

Receivable(1)

(Dollars in millions)

Individually impaired loans:

With related allowance recorded:

Single-family:

Primary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 116,477 $ 110,502 $ 16,745 $ 125,960 $ 120,221 $ 20,327 $ 309

Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 327 59 281 285 46 12

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,888 29,103 6,217 35,492 32,816 7,778 136

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,893 12,179 2,416 14,667 13,947 3,049 38

Total single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . 161,580 152,111 25,437 176,400 167,269 31,200 495

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 650 654 80 1,230 1,241 175 6

Total individually impaired loans with 

related allowance recorded . . . . . . . 162,230 152,765 25,517 177,630 168,510 31,375 501

With no related allowance recorded:(2)

Single-family:

Primary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,891 14,725 — 16,704 14,876 — —

Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 54 — 61 57 — —

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,721 3,169 — 3,993 3,119 — —

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,222 1,102 — 1,240 1,056 — —

Total single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . 20,892 19,050 — 21,998 19,108 — —

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 353 354 — 565 568 — —

Total individually impaired loans with 

no related allowance recorded. . . . . 21,245 19,404 — 22,563 19,676 — —

Total individually impaired loans(3)

. . . . $ 183,475 $ 172,169 $ 25,517 $ 200,193 $ 188,186 $ 31,375 $ 501
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-30

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Average

Recorded

Investment

Total 

Interest 

Income 

Recognized(4)

Interest

Income

Recognized

on a Cash

Basis

Average

Recorded

Investment

Total 

Interest 

Income 

Recognized(4)

Interest

Income

Recognized

on a Cash

Basis

Average

Recorded

Investment

Total 

Interest 

Income 

Recognized(4)

Interest

Income

Recognized

on a Cash

Basis

(Dollars in millions)

Individually impaired loans:

With related allowance 

recorded:

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 114,737 $ 4,190 $ 318 $ 121,926 $ 4,321 $ 494 $ 124,659 $ 4,351 $ 603

Government . . . . . . . . . 299 12 — 270 13 — 213 11 —

Alt-A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,453 1,034 54 33,676 1,066 100 35,075 1,096 135

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,863 376 21 14,490 402 36 15,537 425 52

Total single-family . . 158,352 5,612 393 170,362 5,802 630 175,484 5,883 790

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . 973 16 — 1,699 80 1 2,552 128 1

Total individually 

impaired loans with 

related allowance 

recorded . . . . . . . . . . . .

159,325 5,628 393 172,061 5,882 631 178,036 6,011 791

With no related allowance 

recorded: (2)

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15,796 1,039 91 13,852 864 215 11,442 1,369 227

Government . . . . . . . . . 55 4 — 67 5 — 112 8 —

Alt-A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,647 218 11 2,799 189 47 2,207 329 45

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,259 75 3 974 56 12 752 117 17

Total single-family . . 20,757 1,336 105 17,692 1,114 274 14,513 1,823 289

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . 442 10 — 1,472 64 — 1,863 97 3

Total individually 

impaired loans with no 

related allowance 

recorded . . . . . . . . . . . .

21,199 1,346 105 19,164 1,178 274 16,376 1,920 292

Total individually 

impaired loans(3)

. . . . . . $ 180,524 $ 6,974 $ 498 $ 191,225 $ 7,060 $ 905 $ 194,412 $ 7,931 $ 1,083

__________

(1) Effective January 1, 2015, we charged off accrued interest receivable associated with loans on nonaccrual status in connection with our 

adoption of a change in accounting policy related to the treatment of interest previously accrued, but not collected, at the date that loans 

are placed on nonaccrual status. See “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” for additional information.

(2) The discounted cash flows or collateral value equals or exceeds the carrying value of the loan and, as such, no valuation allowance is 

required.

(3) Includes single-family loans restructured in a TDR with a recorded investment of $170.3 billion, $185.2 billion and $187.6 billion as of 

December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Includes multifamily loans restructured in a TDR with a recorded investment of $451 

million, $716 million and $911 million as of December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively.

(4) Total single-family interest income recognized of $6.9 billion for the year ended December 31, 2015 consists of $5.7 billion of 

contractual interest and $1.2 billion of effective yield adjustments. Total single-family interest income recognized of $6.9 billion for the 

year ended December 31, 2014 consists of $5.8 billion of contractual interest and $1.1 billion of effective yield adjustments. Total 

single-family interest income recognized of $7.7 billion for the year ended December 31, 2013 consists of $5.7 billion of contractual 

interest and $2.0 billion 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. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-31

The substantial majority of the loan modifications we complete result in term extensions, interest rate reductions or a 

combination of both. The average term extension of a single-family modified loan was 161 months for the years ended 

December 31, 2015 and 2014 and 154 months for the year ended December 31, 2013. The average interest rate reduction was 

0.74, 0.99 and 1.68 percentage points for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. 

The following table displays the number of loans and recorded investment in loans restructured in a TDR.

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Number of

Loans

Recorded 

Investment

Number of

Loans

Recorded 

Investment

Number of

Loans

Recorded 

Investment

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71,293 $ 9,713 100,956 $ 14,301 126,998 $ 19,016

Government. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241 27 365 47 312 35

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,037 1,374 14,715 2,441 21,471 3,794

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,835 333 3,357 686 6,226 1,378

Total single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82,406 11,447 119,393 17,475 155,007 24,223

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 40 19 853 33 213

Total TDRs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82,418 $ 11,487 119,412 $ 18,328 155,040 $ 24,436

The following table displays 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.

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Number of

Loans

Recorded

Investment

Number of

Loans

Recorded

Investment

Number of

Loans

Recorded

Investment

(Dollars in millions)

Single-family:

Primary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,206 $ 3,808 33,853 $ 5,095 45,539 $ 6,978

Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 16 124 15 130 17

Alt-A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,128 706 5,392 960 9,601 1,732

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,229 247 1,738 387 3,093 685

Total single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,681 4,777 41,107 6,457 58,363 9,412

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 6 9 42 9 64

Total TDRs that subsequently defaulted . . . . . . . . 31,684 $ 4,783 41,116 $ 6,499 58,372 $ 9,476

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.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-32

The following table displays changes in single-family, multifamily and total allowance for loan losses.

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Of

Fannie

Mae

Of

Consolidated

Trusts Total

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 32,956 $ 2,221 $ 35,177 $ 40,202 $ 3,105 $ 43,307 $ 49,848 $ 7,839 $ 57,687

Provision (benefit) for loan losses (1) (258) 190 (68) (4,334) 553 (3,781) (6,751) (2,145) (8,896)

Charge-offs(2)(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9,647) (84) (9,731) (6,168) (225) (6,393) (8,458) (256) (8,714)

Recoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,120 16 1,136 1,190 250 1,440 2,115 511 2,626

Transfers (4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,123 (1,123) — 1,513 (1,513) — 2,932 (2,932) —

Other (5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,145 50 1,195 553 51 604 516 88 604

Ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 26,439 $ 1,270 $ 27,709 $ 32,956 $ 2,221 $ 35,177 $ 40,202 $ 3,105 $ 43,307

Multifamily allowance for loan losses:

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 161 $ 203 $ 364 $ 319 $ 220 $ 539 $ 671 $ 437 $ 1,108

Benefit for loan losses (1). . . . . . . . . (63) (27) (90) (91) (13) (104) (233) (187) (420)

Charge-offs (2)(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (40) (3) (43) (76) — (76) (153) — (153)

Recoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 — 4 — — — — — —

Transfers (4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 (4) — 4 (4) — 30 (30) —

Other (5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 2 7 5 — 5 4 — 4

Ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 71 $ 171 $ 242 $ 161 $ 203 $ 364 $ 319 $ 220 $ 539

Total allowance for loan losses:

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 33,117 $ 2,424 $ 35,541 $ 40,521 $ 3,325 $ 43,846 $ 50,519 $ 8,276 $ 58,795

Provision (benefit) for loan losses (1) (321) 163 (158) (4,425) 540 (3,885) (6,984) (2,332) (9,316)

Charge-offs(2)(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (9,687) (87) (9,774) (6,244) (225) (6,469) (8,611) (256) (8,867)

Recoveries . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,124 16 1,140 1,190 250 1,440 2,115 511 2,626

Transfers (4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,127 (1,127) — 1,517 (1,517) — 2,962 (2,962) —

Other (5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,150 52 1,202 558 51 609 520 88 608

Ending balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 26,510 $ 1,441 $ 27,951 $ 33,117 $ 2,424 $ 35,541 $ 40,521 $ 3,325 $ 43,846

__________

(1) Provision (benefit) for loan losses is included in “Benefit for credit losses” in our 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) Includes, for the year ended December 31, 2015, charge-offs of (1) $1.8 billion in loans held for investment and $724 million in 

preforeclosure property taxes and insurance receivable in connection with our adoption of the Advisory Bulletin on January 1, 2015 

and (2) $1.1 billion in accrued interest receivable in connection with our adoption of a change in accounting policy on January 1, 2015 

related to the treatment of interest previously accrued, but not collected, at the date that loans are placed on nonaccrual status.

(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 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-33

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 December 31,

2015 2014

SingleFamily Multifamily TotalSingleFamily Multifamily Total

(Dollars in millions)

Allowance for loan losses by segment:

Individually impaired loans(1). . . . . . . . . $ 25,437 $ 80 $ 25,517 $ 31,200 $ 175 $ 31,375

Collectively reserved loans. . . . . . . . . . . 2,272 162 2,434 3,977 189 4,166

Total allowance for loan losses. . . . . . $ 27,709 $ 242 $ 27,951 $ 35,177 $ 364 $ 35,541

Recorded investment in loans by segment:

Individually impaired loans(1). . . . . . . . . $ 171,161 $ 1,008 $ 172,169 $ 186,377 $ 1,809 $ 188,186

Collectively reserved loans. . . . . . . . . . . 2,664,377 199,166 2,863,543 2,672,184 187,424 2,859,608

Total recorded investment in loans. . . $2,835,538 $200,174 $3,035,712 $2,858,561 $189,233 $ 3,047,794

__________

(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 gains (losses), net” 

in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. The following table displays our investments in 

trading securities.

As of December 31,

2015 2014

(Dollars in millions)

Mortgage-related securities:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,813 $ 4,940

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,314 1,369

Ginnie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426 166

Alt-A private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 436 920

Subprime private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 644 1,307

Commercial mortgage-backed securities (“CMBS”) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,341 2,515

Mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449 722

Other mortgage-related securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 99

Total mortgage-related securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,423 12,038

U.S. Treasury securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,485 19,466

Total trading securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 39,908 $ 31,504

The following table displays information about our net trading gains and losses.

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Net trading gains (losses) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (368) $ 485 $ 260

Net trading gains (losses) recognized in the period related to securities still held at period

end. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (453) 420 297
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-34

Available-for-Sale Securities

We record 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 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 Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Gross realized gains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,066 $ 569 $ 1,632

Gross realized losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 5 979

Total proceeds (excludes initial sale of securities from new portfolio securitizations) . . . . . . . 8,023 3,265 15,157

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 December 31, 2015

Total 

Amortized 

Cost(1)

Gross

Unrealized

Gains

Gross 

Unrealized 

Losses - 

OTTI(2)

Gross 

Unrealized 

Losses - 

Other(3)

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 (29) (8) 2,701

Other mortgage-related securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,361 49 (6) — 1,404

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $18,141 $ 2,170 $ (39) $ (42) $ 20,230

As of December 31, 2014

Total 

Amortized 

Cost(1)

Gross

Unrealized

Gains

Gross 

Unrealized 

Losses - 

OTTI(2)

Gross 

Unrealized 

Losses - 

Other(3)

Total

Fair

Value

(Dollars in millions)

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,330 $ 328 $ — $ (19) $ 5,639

Freddie Mac. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,100 428 — — 5,528

Ginnie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 416 60 — — 476

Alt-A private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,638 1,055 (15) — 5,678

Subprime private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,103 1,161 (9) (15) 5,240

CMBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,341 56 — — 1,397

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,859 177 (8) (5) 4,023

Other mortgage-related securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,626 183 (23) (113) 2,673

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $27,413 $ 3,448 $ (55) $ (152) $ 30,654

s

__________

(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 consolidated statements of operations and 

comprehensive income.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-35

(2) Represents the noncredit component of OTTI losses recorded in “Accumulated other comprehensive income” in our consolidated 

balance sheets, as well as cumulative changes in fair value of securities for which we previously recognized the credit component of 

OTTI.

(3) Represents the gross unrealized losses on securities for which we have not recognized OTTI.

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 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

As of December 31, 2014

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ — $ 113 $ (19) $ 627

Alt-A private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) 171 (13) 112

Subprime private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — (24) 460

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) 47 (11) 155

Other mortgage-related securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 8 (136) 1,021

 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (4) $ 339 $ (203) $ 2,375

Other-Than-Temporary Impairments 

For AFS securities, OTTI is considered to have occurred when the fair value of a debt security is below its amortized cost 

basis and we intend to sell or it is more likely than not that we will be required to sell the security before recovery. 

Additionally, OTTI is considered to have occurred if we do not expect to recover the entire amortized cost basis of a debt 

security even if we do not intend to sell the security or it is not more likely than not we will be required to sell the security 

before recovery.

We recognized $196 million, $90 million and $64 million of OTTI for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, 

respectively, which are included in “Investment gains, net” in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive 

income. OTTI recognized for the year ended December 31, 2015 increased compared with the year ended December 31, 

2014 primarily driven by a change in our intent to sell certain securities. As a result, we recognized the entire difference 

between the amortized cost basis of these securities and their fair value as OTTI.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-36

The following table displays the modeled attributes, including default rates and severities, which were used to determine 

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. 

As of December 31, 2015

Alt-A

Subprime Option ARM Fixed Rate Variable Rate Hybrid Rate

(Dollars in millions)

Unpaid principal balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,367 $ 434 $ 817 $ 805 $ 987

Weighted average collateral default(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . 41.2% 28.2% 12.0% 20.4% 8.6%

Weighted average collateral severities(2)

. . . . . . . . . 58.8 34.4 45.0 37.3 33.1

Weighted average voluntary prepayment rates(3). . 2.7 7.5 11.6 8.7 12.5

Average credit enhancement(4)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18.2 3.6 7.2 8.7 4.3

__________

(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 consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. 

For the Year Ended

December 31,

2015 2014

(Dollars in millions)

Balance, beginning of period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,260 $ 7,904

Additions for the credit component on debt securities for which OTTI was not previously recognized . — 1

Additions for the credit component on debt securities for which OTTI was previously recognized . . . . 8 58

Reductions for securities no longer in portfolio at period end. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,171) (904)

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,492) (1,453)

Reductions for amortization resulting from changes in cash flows expected to be collected over the

remaining life of the securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (184) (346)

Balance, end of period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,421 $ 5,260

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.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-37

As of December 31, 2015

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. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 4,008 $ 4,221 $ — $ — $ 160 $ 164 $ 114 $ 123 $ 3,734 $ 3,934

Freddie Mac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,000 4,299 1 1 185 192 310 337 3,504 3,769

Ginnie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343 391 — — 1 1 61 68 281 322

Alt-A private-label securities. 2,029 2,678 — — — — — — 2,029 2,678

Subprime private-label

securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,526 3,281 — — — — — — 2,526 3,281

CMBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,235 1,255 278 280 899 917 — — 58 58

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . 2,639 2,701 11 11 112 113 202 205 2,314 2,372

Other mortgage-related

securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,361 1,404 — — — — 29 30 1,332 1,374

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 18,141 $ 20,230 $ 290 $ 292 $ 1,357 $ 1,387 $ 716 $ 763 $ 15,778 $ 17,788

Weighted average yield(1)

. . . . 4.94% 4.36% 4.51% 6.28% 4.93%

__________

(1) Yields are determined by dividing interest income (including amortization and accretion of premiums, discounts and other cost basis 

adjustments) by amortized cost balances as of year-end. Yields on tax-exempt obligations have been computed on a tax equivalent 

basis.

6. Financial Guarantees

We generate revenue by absorbing the credit risk of mortgage loans in unconsolidated trusts in exchange for a guaranty fee. 

We also provide credit enhancements on taxable or tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds issued by state and local 

governmental entities to finance multifamily housing for low- and moderate-income families. Additionally, we issue longterm standby commitments that generally require us to purchase loans from lenders if the loans meet certain delinquency 

criteria. 

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 11 days to 37 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 consolidated balance sheets and 

the maximum potential recovery from third parties through available credit enhancements and recourse related to our 

financial guarantees.

As of December 31,

2015 2014

Maximum 

Exposure

(1)

Guaranty

Obligation

Maximum 

Recovery(2)

Maximum 

Exposure

(1)

Guaranty

Obligation

Maximum 

Recovery(2)

(Dollars in millions)

Unconsolidated Fannie Mae MBS. . . . . . . . . . . $ 15,069 $ 194 $ 8,857 $ 17,184 $ 214 $ 9,775

Other guaranty arrangements(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . 16,504 135 2,869 18,781 168 4,447

 Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 31,573 $ 329 $ 11,726 $ 35,965 $ 382 $ 14,222

__________

(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 and financial guarantors, see “Note 15, 

Concentrations of Credit Risk.”

(3) Primarily consists of credit enhancements, long-term standby commitments, and our commitment under the TCLF program.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-38

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 related valuation allowance.

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Beginning balance — Acquired property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 11,442 $ 12,307 $ 11,158

Additions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,382 13,100 16,092

Disposals. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (13,343) (13,965) (14,943)

Ending balance — Acquired property. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,481 11,442 12,307

Beginning balance — Valuation allowance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (824) (686) (669)

Decrease (increase) in valuation allowance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 (138) (17)

Ending balance — Valuation allowance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (715) (824) (686)

Ending balance — Acquired property, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6,766 $ 10,618 $ 11,621

We classify as held for use those properties that we do not intend to sell or that are not ready for immediate sale in their 

current condition, which are included in “Other assets” in our consolidated balance sheets. For the years ended December 31, 

2015, 2014 and 2013, the carrying amount of acquired property held for use was $85 million, $135 million and $256 million, 

respectively. 

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 December 31,

2015 2014

Outstanding

WeightedAverage 

Interest 

Rate(1) Outstanding

WeightedAverage 

Interest 

Rate(1)

(Dollars in millions)

Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to 

repurchase(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 62 —% $ 50 —%

Short-term debt of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 71,007 0.26% $ 105,012 0.11%

Debt of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 943 0.19 1,560 0.09

Total short-term debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 71,950 0.26% $ 106,572 0.11%

__________

(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 periodically 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 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-39

was $15.0 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014. We had no borrowings outstanding under this line of credit as of 

December 31, 2015.

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 December 31,

2015 2014

Maturities Outstanding

WeightedAverage 

Interest 

Rate(1) Maturities Outstanding

WeightedAverage 

Interest 

Rate(1)

(Dollars in millions)

Senior fixed:

Benchmark notes and bonds. . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2030 $ 154,057 2.49% 2015 - 2030 $ 173,010 2.41%

Medium-term notes(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2025 96,997 1.53 2015 - 2024 114,556 1.42

Other(3). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2038 27,772 4.88 2015 - 2038 32,941 4.65

Total senior fixed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278,826 2.39 320,507 2.29

Senior floating:

Medium-term notes(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2019 20,791 0.27 2015 - 2019 24,469 0.15

Connecticut Avenue Securities(4). . . . . . . 2023 - 2028 10,764 3.84 2023 - 2024 6,041 2.97

Other(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2020 - 2037 368 10.46 2020 - 2037 363 8.71

Total senior floating. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,923 1.58 30,873 0.81

Subordinated debentures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2019 4,227 9.93 2019 3,849 9.93

Secured borrowings(6). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2021 - 2022 152 1.47 2021 - 2022 202 1.90

Total long-term debt of Fannie Mae(7)

. . . 315,128 2.41 355,431 2.24

Debt of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2016 - 2054 2,810,593 2.94 2015 - 2054 2,760,152 3.02

Total long-term debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,125,721 2.88% $ 3,115,583 2.93%

__________

(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. Connecticut Avenue Securities are 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 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 $3.2 billion and $4.1 

billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

Our long-term debt includes a variety of debt types. We issue fixed and floating-rate medium-term notes with maturities 

greater than one year that are issued through dealer banks. We also offer Benchmark Notes in regularly-scheduled issuances 

that provide increased efficiency, liquidity and tradability to the market. Additionally, we have issued notes and bonds 

denominated in several foreign currencies. We effectively convert all foreign currency-denominated transactions into 

U.S. dollars through the use of foreign currency swaps for the purpose of funding our mortgage assets. Our long-term debt 

also includes Connecticut Avenue Securities (“CAS”), which are credit risk-sharing securities that transfer a portion of the 

credit risk on specified pools of mortgage loans to investors in these securities. 

Our other long-term debt includes callable and non-callable securities, which include all long-term non-Benchmark 

securities, such as zero-coupon bonds, fixed rate and other long-term securities, and are generally negotiated underwritings 

with one or more dealers or dealer banks.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-40

Characteristics of Debt 

As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the face amount of our debt securities of Fannie Mae was $389.4 billion and $464.6 

billion, respectively. As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, we had zero-coupon debt with a face amount of $82.1 billion and 

$116.7 billion, respectively, which had an effective interest rate of 1.26% and 0.77%, respectively. 

We issue callable debt instruments to manage the duration and prepayment risk of expected cash flows of the mortgage assets 

we own. Our outstanding debt as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 included $96.2 billion and $115.0 billion, respectively, of 

callable debt that could be redeemed in whole or in part at our option any time on or after a specified date.

The following table displays the amount of our long-term debt as of December 31, 2015 by year of maturity for each of the 

years 2016 through 2020 and thereafter. The first column assumes that we pay off this debt at maturity or on the call date if 

the call has been announced, while the second column assumes that we redeem our callable debt at the next available call 

date. 

Long-Term Debt by

Year of Maturity

Assuming Callable Debt

Redeemed at Next

Available Call Date

(Dollars in millions)

2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 52,829 $ 143,970

2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76,970 69,351

2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60,555 32,832

2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,656 19,036

2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,129 16,658

Thereafter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64,989 33,281

Total debt of Fannie Mae(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 315,128 315,128

Debt of consolidated trusts(2). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,810,593 2,810,593

Total long-term debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,125,721 $ 3,125,721

__________

(1) Includes unamortized discounts and premiums, other cost basis adjustments and fair value adjustments of $3.2 billion.

(2) Contractual maturity of debt of consolidated trusts is not a reliable indicator of expected maturity because borrowers of the underlying 

loans generally have the right to prepay their obligations at any time. 

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 derivative contracts we use for interest rate risk management 

purposes fall into these broad categories:

• Interest rate swap contracts. An interest rate swap is a transaction between two parties in which each party agrees to 

exchange payments tied to different interest rates or indices for a specified period of time, generally based on a 

notional amount of principal. The types of interest rate swaps we use include pay-fixed swaps, receive-fixed swaps and 

basis swaps.

• Interest rate option contracts. These contracts primarily include pay-fixed swaptions, receive-fixed swaptions, 

cancelable swaps and interest rate caps. A swaption is an option contract that allows us or a counterparty to enter into a 

pay-fixed or receive-fixed swap at some point in the future.

• Foreign currency swaps. These swaps convert debt that we issue in foreign denominated currencies into U.S. dollars. 

We enter into foreign currency swaps only to the extent that we hold foreign currency debt.

• Futures. These are standardized exchange-traded contracts that either obligate a buyer to buy an asset at a 

predetermined date and price or a seller to sell an asset at a predetermined date and price. The types of futures 

contracts we enter into include Eurodollar, U.S. Treasury and swaps.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-41

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. 

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.

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 December 31, 2015 As of December 31, 2014

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 33,154 $ 267 $ 123,106 $ (6,920) $ 41,965 $ 733 $ 123,557 $ (7,125)

Receive-fixed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59,796 3,436 143,209 (753) 67,629 4,486 157,272 (1,302)

Basis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,864 141 17,100 (15) 5,769 123 7,100 (2)

Foreign currency . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295 95 258 (52) 344 144 273 (30)

Swaptions:

Pay-fixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,050 45 14,950 (26) 11,100 57 26,525 (175)

Receive-fixed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,000 8 13,950 (171) 750 96 29,525 (816)

Other(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,196 28 — (2) 1,071 28 12 (1)

Total gross risk management

derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113,355 4,020 312,573 (7,939) 128,628 5,667 344,264 (9,451)

Accrued interest receivable

(payable) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 758 — (977) — 749 — (1,013)

Netting adjustment(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . — (4,024) — 8,650 — (5,186) — 10,194

Total net risk management

derivatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 113,355 $ 754 $ 312,573 $ (266) $ 128,628 $ 1,230 $ 344,264 $ (270)

Mortgage commitment derivatives:

Mortgage commitments to

purchase whole loans . . . . . . . . . $ 4,815 $ 9 $ 2,960 $ (9) $ 6,157 $ 28 $ 428 $ —

Forward contracts to purchase

mortgage-related securities . . . . . 31,273 66 19,418 (57) 43,533 223 6,112 (8)

Forward contracts to sell mortgagerelated securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26,224 65 40,753 (92) 4,886 4 57,910 (336)

Total mortgage commitment

derivatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62,312 140 63,131 (158) 54,576 255 64,450 (344)

Derivatives at fair value . . . . . . . . $ 175,667 $ 894 $ 375,704 $ (424) $ 183,204 $ 1,485 $ 408,714 $ (614)

__________

(1) Includes futures and swap credit enhancements, as well as credit risk transfer transactions and mortgage insurance contracts that we 

account for as derivatives.

(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 $4.9 billion and 

$5.3 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Cash collateral received was $314 million and $245 million as of 

December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-42

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 $2.4 billion and $2.6 billion, for which we posted collateral of 

$2.2 billion and $2.4 billion in the normal course of business as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Had all of the 

credit-risk-related contingency features underlying these agreements been triggered, an additional $257 million and $269 

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 December 31, 2015 and 2014, 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 gains (losses), net” in our 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 Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Risk management derivatives:

Swaps:

Pay-fixed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (746) $ (7,703) $ 14,393

Receive-fixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 625 4,229 (10,721)

Basis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 85 (115)

Foreign currency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (60) 27 (101)

Swaptions:

Pay-fixed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 (4) (238)

Receive-fixed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (93) (197) 307

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (25) 1 21

Accrual of periodic settlements:

Pay-fixed interest-rate swaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3,602) (3,712) (4,463)

Receive-fixed interest-rate swaps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,603 2,600 3,632

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 50 64

Total risk management derivatives fair value gains (losses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,120) (4,624) 2,779

Mortgage commitment derivatives fair value gains (losses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (393) (1,140) 501

Total derivatives fair value gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (1,513) $ (5,764) $ 3,280

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 16, Netting Arrangements” for information on our rights to offset assets and liabilities as of December 31, 2015 

and 2014.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-43

10. Income Taxes

Provision (Benefit) for Income Taxes

We are subject to federal income tax, but we are exempt from state and local income taxes. 

The following table displays the components of our provision (benefit) for federal income taxes.

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Current income tax provision (benefit) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (271) $ 1,879 $ 3,067

Deferred income tax provision (benefit)(1). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,524 5,062 (48,482)

Provision (benefit) for federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,253 $ 6,941 $(45,415)

__________

(1) Amount excludes the income tax effect of items recognized directly in “Fannie Mae stockholders’ equity.”

Current income tax benefit for the year ended December 31, 2015 reflects the recognition of a $1.4 billion income tax 

receivable expected from an amended federal tax return primarily related to deductions for charged-off nonaccrued interest. 

This amount was fully offset by a corresponding $1.4 billion decrease in our deferred tax assets resulting in an increase in our 

deferred income tax provision.

The following table displays the difference between our effective tax rate and the statutory federal tax rate.

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Statutory corporate tax rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35.0 % 35.0 % 35.0 %

Equity investments in affordable housing projects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2.6) (1.8) (1.5)

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9 1.4 —

Valuation allowance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (0.9) (1.8) (151.3)

Effective tax rate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.4 % 32.8 % (117.8) %

Our effective tax rate is the provision (benefit) for federal income taxes expressed as a percentage of income or loss before 

federal income taxes. Our effective tax rate was different from the federal statutory rate of 35% for the years ended 

December 31, 2015 and 2014 primarily due to the benefits of our investments in housing projects eligible for low-income 

housing tax credits. The decrease in our deferred tax valuation allowance in 2015 reflects the utilization of our capital loss 

carryforwards due to recognition of net capital gains, which allowed us to release the corresponding valuation allowance 

against our capital loss carryforwards. The decrease in our deferred tax valuation allowance in 2014 reflects the expiration of 

certain capital loss carryforwards that are included as a component of “Other” in the table above. Our effective tax rate was 

different from the federal statutory rate of 35% for the year ended December 31, 2013 primarily due to the release of our 

valuation allowance for our net deferred tax assets that resulted in the recognition of $58.3 billion benefit in our provision 

(benefit) for income taxes. 

Deferred Tax Assets and Liabilities

We recognize deferred tax assets and liabilities for future tax consequences arising from differences between the carrying 

amounts of existing assets and liabilities under GAAP and their respective tax bases.

We evaluate our deferred tax assets for recoverability using a consistent approach which considers the relative impact of 

negative and positive evidence, including our historical profitability and projections of future taxable income. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-44

As of December 31, 2015, we continued to conclude that the positive evidence in favor of the recoverability of our deferred 

tax asset outweighed the negative evidence and that it is more likely than not that our deferred tax assets will be realized. Our 

framework for assessing the recoverability of deferred tax assets requires us to weigh all available evidence, including the 

sustainability of recent profitability required to realize the deferred tax assets; the cumulative net income or losses in our 

consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income in recent years; unsettled circumstances that, if unfavorably 

resolved, would adversely affect future operations and profit levels on a continuing basis in future years; the funding 

available to us under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement; and the carryforward periods for any carryforwards of 

net operating losses, if any, capital losses and tax credits.

The following table displays our deferred tax assets, deferred tax liabilities and valuation allowance.

As of December 31,

2015 2014

(Dollars in millions)

Deferred tax assets:

Mortgage and mortgage-related assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 16,956 $ 16,250

Allowance for loan losses and basis in acquired property, net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,760 17,435

Debt and derivative instruments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,512 4,254

Partnership credits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,402 2,918

Partnership and other equity investments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 745 934

Other, net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,543 1,699

Total deferred tax assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37,918 43,490

Deferred tax liabilities:

Unrealized gains on AFS securities, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 731 1,134

Total deferred tax liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 731 1,134

Valuation allowance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — (150)

Deferred tax assets, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 37,187 $ 42,206

As of December 31, 2015, we had no net operating loss carryforwards. We had a remaining balance of $3.4 billion of 

partnership tax credit carryforwards that expire in various years through 2035 and $308 million of alternative minimum tax 

credit carryforwards that have an indefinite carryforward period.

Unrecognized Tax Benefits

The following table displays the changes in our unrecognized tax benefits.

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Unrecognized tax benefits as of January 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 213 $ 514 $ 648

Gross decreases—tax positions in prior years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (213) (301) (134)

Unrecognized tax benefits as of December 31(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ — $ 213 $ 514

__________

(1) Amounts exclude tax credits of $91 million and $220 million as of December 31, 2014 and 2013, respectively.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-45

11. Loss Per Share

The following table displays the computation of basic and diluted loss per share of common stock. 

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars and shares in millions, except

per share amounts)

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 10,955 $ 14,209 $ 83,982

Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) (1) (19)

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,954 14,208 83,963

Dividends distributed or available for distribution to senior preferred stockholder(1)

. . . . (11,216) (15,323) (85,419)

Net loss attributable to common stockholders. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (262) $ (1,115) $ (1,456)

Weighted-average common shares outstanding—basic and diluted(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,762 5,762 5,762

Loss per share: basic and diluted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (0.05) $ (0.19) $ (0.25)

__________

(1) Dividends distributed or available for distribution were calculated based on our net worth as of the end of the fiscal quarters for each 

respective year, less the applicable capital reserve. See “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” for additional 

information on our senior preferred stock agreement and our payment of dividends to Treasury. 

(2) Includes 4.6 billion for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, 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 December 31, 2015, 

2014 and 2013, respectively.

12. 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 structure, the sum of the results for our three business segments does not equal our consolidated results of 

operations as we separate the activity related to our consolidated trusts from the results generated by our three segments. In 

addition, we apply accounting methods for segment reporting purposes that differ from our consolidated results. Therefore, 

we reconcile the sum of the results for our three business segments to our consolidated results of operations.

The section below provides a discussion of the three business segments and how each segment’s financial information 

reconciles to our consolidated financial statements.

Single-Family

The primary source of revenue for our Single-Family business is the guaranty fees the segment receives as compensation for 

assuming the credit risk on the mortgage loans underlying single-family Fannie Mae MBS, most of which are held within 

consolidated trusts, and on the single-family mortgage loans held in our retained mortgage portfolio. The primary source of 

profit for the Single-Family segment is the difference between the guaranty fees earned and the costs of providing the 

guaranty, including credit-related expense.

Our segment reporting presentation differs from our consolidated balance sheets and statements of operations and 

comprehensive income in order to reflect the activities and results of the Single-Family segment. The significant differences 

from the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income are as follows:

• Guaranty fee income—Guaranty fee income reflects the cash guaranty fees paid by MBS trusts to Single-Family, the 

amortization of deferred cash fees (both the previously recorded deferred cash fees that were eliminated from our 

consolidated balance sheets upon adoption of the consolidation accounting guidance on January 1, 2010 and deferred 

guaranty fees received subsequent to that adoption are currently recognized in our consolidated financial statements 

through interest income), such as buy-ups, buy-downs, and risk-based pricing adjustments, and the guaranty fees from 

the Capital Markets group on single-family loans in our retained mortgage portfolio. To reconcile to our consolidated 

statements of operations and comprehensive income, we eliminate guaranty fees and the amortization of deferred cash 

fees related to consolidated trusts as they are now reflected as a component of interest income; however, such 

accounting continues to be reflected for the segment reporting presentation.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-46

• Net interest income or loss—Net interest income or loss within the Single-Family segment reflects interest expense to 

reimburse Capital Markets and consolidated trusts for contractual interest not received on mortgage loans, when 

interest income is no longer recognized in accordance with our nonaccrual accounting policy in our consolidated 

statements of operations and comprehensive income. Net interest income (loss), also includes an allocated cost of 

capital charge among the three segments that is not included in net interest income in the consolidated statements of 

operations and comprehensive income.

Multifamily

The primary sources of revenue for our Multifamily business are guaranty fees the segment receives as compensation for 

assuming the credit risk on the mortgage loans underlying multifamily Fannie Mae MBS, most of which are held within 

consolidated trusts, guaranty fees on the multifamily mortgage loans held in our retained mortgage portfolio and other fees 

associated with multifamily business activities. Partnership investments in rental and for-sale housing generate revenue and 

losses from operations and the eventual sale of the assets. 

Our segment reporting presentation differs from our consolidated balance sheets and statements of operations and 

comprehensive income in order to reflect the activities and results of the Multifamily segment. The significant differences 

from the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income are as follows:

• Guaranty fee income—Guaranty fee income reflects the cash guaranty fees paid by MBS trusts to Multifamily and the 

guaranty fees from the Capital Markets group on multifamily loans in Fannie Mae’s portfolio. To reconcile to our 

consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, we eliminate guaranty fees related to consolidated 

trusts.

• Gains or losses from partnership investments—Gains from partnership investments primarily reflect gains or losses on 

investments in affordable rental and for-sale housing partnerships measured under the equity method of accounting. To 

reconcile to our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, we adjust the gains or losses to 

reflect the consolidation of certain partnership investments.

Capital Markets Group

Our Capital Markets group generates most of its revenue from the difference, or spread, between the interest we earn on the 

mortgage assets in our retained mortgage portfolio and the interest we pay on the debt we issue to fund these assets. We refer 

to this spread as our net interest yield. Changes in the fair value of the derivative instruments and trading securities we hold 

and gains and losses on securitizations and sales of available-for-sale securities from our portfolio impact the net income or 

loss reported by the Capital Markets group. In addition, a substantial majority of fee and other income for 2013 and 2014 

consisted of income resulting from settlement agreements resolving certain lawsuits relating to PLS sold to us. 

Our segment reporting presentation differs from our consolidated balance sheets and statements of operations and 

comprehensive income in order to reflect the activities and results of the Capital Markets group. The significant differences 

from the consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income are as follows:

• Net interest income—Net interest income reflects the interest income on mortgage loans and securities owned by 

Fannie Mae and interest expense on funding debt issued by Fannie Mae, including accretion and amortization of any 

cost basis adjustments. To reconcile to our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, we adjust 

for the impact of consolidated trusts and intercompany eliminations as follows:

• Interest income: Interest income consists of interest on the segment’s interest-earning assets, which differs from 

interest-earning assets in our consolidated balance sheets. We exclude loans and securities that underlie the 

consolidated trusts from our Capital Markets group balance sheets. The net interest income reported by the Capital 

Markets group excludes the interest income earned on assets held by consolidated trusts. As a result, we report 

interest income and amortization of cost basis adjustments only on securities and loans that are held in our retained 

mortgage portfolio. For mortgage loans held in our retained mortgage portfolio, when interest income is no longer 

recognized in accordance with our nonaccrual accounting policy, the Capital Markets group recognizes interest 

income for reimbursement from Single-Family and Multifamily for the contractual interest due under the terms of 

our intracompany guaranty arrangement.

• Interest expense: Interest expense consists of contractual interest on the Capital Markets group’s interest-bearing 

liabilities, including the accretion and amortization of any cost basis adjustments. It excludes interest expense on 

debt issued by consolidated trusts. Therefore, the interest expense recognized on the Capital Markets group income 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-47

statement is limited to our funding debt, which is reported as “Debt of Fannie Mae” in our consolidated balance 

sheets. Net interest expense also includes an allocated cost of capital charge among the three business segments that 

is not included in net interest income in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

• Investment gains or losses, net—Investment gains or losses, net includes the gains and losses on securitizations and 

sales of available-for-sale securities from our portfolio. To reconcile to our consolidated statements of operations and 

comprehensive income, we eliminate gains and losses on securities that have been consolidated to loans.

• Fair value gains or losses, net—Fair value gains or losses, net for the Capital Markets group includes derivative gains 

and losses, foreign exchange gains and losses, and the fair value gains and losses on certain debt securities in our 

portfolio. To reconcile to our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, we eliminate fair value 

gains or losses on Fannie Mae MBS that have been consolidated to loans.

• Other expenses, net—Debt extinguishment gains or losses recorded on the segment statements of operations relate 

exclusively to our funding debt, which is reported as “Debt of Fannie Mae” in our consolidated balance sheets. To 

reconcile to our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income, we include debt extinguishment 

gains or losses related to consolidated trusts to arrive at our total recognized debt extinguishment gains or losses.

Segment Allocations and Results

Our business segment financial results include directly attributable revenues and expenses. Additionally, we allocate to each 

of our segments: (1) capital using FHFA minimum capital requirements adjusted for over- or under-capitalization; (2) indirect 

administrative costs; and (3) a provision or benefit 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.

For the Year Ended December 31, 2015

Business Segments

SingleFamily MultifamilyCapital

Markets

Reconciling 

Items(1) Total

(Dollars in millions)

Net interest income (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 184 $ (92) $ 5,828 $ 15,489 (2) $ 21,409

Benefit for credit losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 688 107 — — 795

Net interest income after benefit for credit losses. . . . 872 15 5,828 15,489 22,204

Guaranty fee income (expense)(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12,476 1,439 (863) (12,924)

(4) 128 (4)

Investment gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2) 33 5,539 (4,234)

(5) 1,336

Fair value gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (11) — (2,049) 293 (6) (1,767)

Debt extinguishment gains (losses), net(7)

. . . . . . . . . . — — (37) 45 8

Gains (losses) from partnership investments(7)

. . . . . . (39) 282 — 1 244

Fee and other income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 666 265 209 80 1,220

Administrative expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,053) (361) (636) — (3,050)

Foreclosed property income (expense) . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,723) 94 — — (1,629)

TCCA fees(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,621) — — — (1,621)

Other income (expense). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (942) (13) 8 82 (865)

Income before federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,623 1,754 7,999 (1,168) 16,208

Provision for federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,491) (247) (2,515) — (5,253)

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,132 1,507 5,484 (1,168) 10,955

Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling

interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — (1)

(8) (1)

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . $ 5,132 $ 1,507 $ 5,484 $ (1,169) $ 10,954
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-48

For the Year Ended December 31, 2014

Business Segments

SingleFamily MultifamilyCapital

Markets

Reconciling 

Items(1) Total

(Dollars in millions)

Net interest income (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6 $ (79) $ 7,243 $ 12,798 (2) $ 19,968

Benefit for credit losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,850 114 — — 3,964

Net interest income after benefit for credit losses. . . 3,856 35 7,243 12,798 23,932

Guaranty fee income (expense)(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,702 1,297 (955) (11,869)

(4) 175 (4)

Investment gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1) 57 6,378 (5,498)

(5) 936

Fair value gains (losses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (19) — (5,476) 662 (6) (4,833)

Debt extinguishment gains, net(7)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 35 31 66

Gains (losses) from partnership investments(7)

. . . . . (31) 299 — 1 269

Fee and other income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 624 166 4,894 28 5,712

Administrative expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,830) (306) (641) — (2,777)

Foreclosed property income (expense) . . . . . . . . . . . (225) 83 — — (142)

TCCA fees(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,375) — — — (1,375)

Other income (expense) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (726) (10) (77) — (813)

Income before federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11,975 1,621 11,401 (3,847) 21,150

Provision for federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (3,496) (158) (3,287) — (6,941)

Net income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,479 1,463 8,114 (3,847) 14,209

Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling

interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — (1)

(8) (1)

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . $ 8,479 $ 1,463 $ 8,114 $ (3,848) $ 14,208
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-49

For the Year Ended December 31, 2013

Business Segments

SingleFamily MultifamilyCapital

Markets

Reconciling 

Items(1) Total

(Dollars in millions)

Net interest income (loss) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 205 $ (74) $ 9,764 $ 12,509 (2) $ 22,404

Benefit for credit losses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,469 480 — — 8,949

Net interest income after benefit for credit losses. . . 8,674 406 9,764 12,509 31,353

Guaranty fee income (expense)(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10,468 1,217 (1,115) (10,365)

(4) 205 (4)

Investment gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 21 4,847 (3,744)

(5) 1,127

Fair value gains (losses), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10) — 3,148 (179)

(6) 2,959

Debt extinguishment gains, net(7)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 27 104 131

Gains from partnership investments(7)

. . . . . . . . . . . . — 498 — 19 517

Fee and other income (expense) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 630 182 3,010 (97) 3,725

Administrative expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,706) (280) (559) — (2,545)

Foreclosed property income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,736 103 — — 2,839

TCCA fees(3)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,001) — — — (1,001)

Other income (expense). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (628) (2) 20 (133) (743)

Income before federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,166 2,145 19,142 (1,886) 38,567

Benefit for federal income taxes(9)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,110 7,924 8,381 — 45,415

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48,276 10,069 27,523 (1,886) 83,982

Less: Net loss attributable to noncontrolling

interest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — (19)

(8) (19)

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . $48,276 $10,069 $27,523 $ (1,905) $ 83,963

__________

(1) Represents activity related to the assets and liabilities of consolidated trusts in our 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 consolidated results.

(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 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) Debt extinguishment gains, net and gains (losses) from partnership investments are included in other expenses in our consolidated 

statements of operations and comprehensive income.

(8) Represents the adjustment from equity method accounting to consolidation accounting for partnership investments that are consolidated 

in our consolidated balance sheets.

(9) Primarily represents the release of the valuation allowance for our deferred tax assets that generally are directly attributable to each 

segment based on the nature of the item.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-50

The following table displays total assets by segment.

As of December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Single-Family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 34,911 $ 43,512 $ 41,206

Multifamily. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9,947 9,281 10,848

Capital Markets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432,689 510,848 596,436

Reconciling items(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,744,370 2,684,535 2,621,618

Total assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,221,917 $3,248,176 $3,270,108

__________

(1) Includes assets of consolidated trusts of $2.8 trillion as of December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013. Includes the elimination of Fannie Mae 

MBS in the Capital Markets group’s mortgage portfolio that are issued by consolidated trusts. Also includes the elimination of the 

allowance for loan losses and fair value losses previously recognized on acquired credit impaired loans as they are not treated as assets 

for Single-Family and Multifamily segment reporting purposes because these allowances and losses relate to loan assets that are held 

by the Capital Markets segment and consolidated trusts.

We operate our business solely in the United States and its territories, and accordingly, we generate no revenue from and have 

no assets in geographic locations other than the United States and its territories.

13. Equity

Common Stock

Shares of common stock outstanding, net of shares held as treasury stock, totaled 1.2 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 

2014.

During conservatorship, the rights and powers of shareholders are suspended. Accordingly, our common shareholders have 

no ability to elect directors or to vote on other matters during the conservatorship unless FHFA elects to delegate this 

authority to them. The senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury prohibits the payment of dividends on 

common stock without the prior written consent of Treasury. The conservator also has eliminated common stock dividends. 

In addition, we issued a warrant to Treasury that provides Treasury with the right to purchase for a nominal price shares of 

our common stock equal to 79.9% of the total number of shares of common stock outstanding on a fully diluted basis on the 

date of exercise, which would substantially dilute the ownership in Fannie Mae of our common stockholders at the time of 

exercise. Refer to the “Senior Preferred Stock and Common Stock Warrant” section of this note for more information.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-51

Preferred Stock

The following table displays our senior preferred stock and preferred stock outstanding. 

Issued and Outstanding as of December 31, Annual 

Dividend 

Rate as of 

December 31, 

2015

2015 2014 Stated

Value per

Title Issue Date Shares Amount Shares Amount Share

Redeemable on

or After

(Dollars and shares in millions, except per share amounts)

Senior Preferred Stock

Series 2008-2 . . . . . September 8, 2008 1 $ 117,149 1 $ 117,149 $ 117,149 (1) N/A (2) N/A (3)

Preferred Stock

Series D . . . . . . . . . September 30, 1998 3 $ 150 3 $ 150 $ 50 5.250 % September 30, 1999

Series E . . . . . . . . . April 15, 1999 3 150 3 150 50 5.100 April 15, 2004

Series F. . . . . . . . . . March 20, 2000 14 690 14 690 50 0.260 (4) March 31, 2002 (5)

Series G . . . . . . . . . August 8, 2000 6 288 6 288 50 0.400 (6) September 30, 2002 (5)

Series H . . . . . . . . . April 6, 2001 8 400 8 400 50 5.810 April 6, 2006

Series I . . . . . . . . . . October 28, 2002 6 300 6 300 50 5.375 October 28, 2007

Series L . . . . . . . . . April 29, 2003 7 345 7 345 50 5.125 April 29, 2008

Series M . . . . . . . . . June 10, 2003 9 460 9 460 50 4.750 June 10, 2008

Series N . . . . . . . . . September 25, 2003 5 225 5 225 50 5.500 September 25, 2008

Series O . . . . . . . . . December 30, 2004 50 2,500 50 2,500 50 7.000 (7) December 31, 2007

Convertible Series 

2004-I(8). . . . . . . December 30, 2004 — 2,492 — 2,492 100,000 5.375 January 5, 2008

Series P. . . . . . . . . . September 28, 2007 40 1,000 40 1,000 25 4.500 (9) September 30, 2012

Series Q . . . . . . . . . October 4, 2007 15 375 15 375 25 6.750 September 30, 2010

Series R(10)

. . . . . . . November 21, 2007 21 530 21 530 25 7.625 November 21, 2012

Series S. . . . . . . . . . December 11, 2007 280 7,000 280 7,000 25 7.750 (11) December 31, 2010 (12)

Series T

(13)

. . . . . . . May 19, 2008 89 2,225 89 2,225 25 8.250 May 20, 2013

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . 556 $ 19,130 556 $ 19,130

__________

(1) Initial stated value per share was $1,000. Based on our draws of funds under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement with 

Treasury, the stated value per share on December 31, 2015 was $117,149.

(2) For the dividend period ended December 31, 2015, the dividend is calculated based on our net worth as of September 30, 2015, less the 

applicable capital reserve amount of $1.8 billion. The capital reserve amount is $1.2 billion for each dividend period in 2016. The 

applicable capital reserve amount will continue to be reduced by $600 million each year until it reaches zero on January 1, 2018. For 

each dividend period beginning in 2018, the dividend amount will be the entire amount of our net worth, if any, as of the end of the 

immediately preceding fiscal quarter. 

(3) Any liquidation preference of our senior preferred stock in excess of $1.0 billion may be repaid through an issuance of common or 

preferred stock, which would require the consent of the conservator and Treasury. The initial $1.0 billion liquidation preference may be 

repaid only in conjunction with termination of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. 

(4) Rate effective March 31, 2014. Variable dividend rate resets every two years at a per annum rate equal to the two-year Constant 

Maturity U.S. Treasury Rate (“CMT”) minus 0.16% with a cap of 11% per year. 

(5) Represents initial call date. Redeemable every two years thereafter.

(6) Rate effective September 30, 2014. Variable dividend rate resets every two years at a per annum rate equal to the two-year CMT rate 

minus 0.18% with a cap of 11% per year. 

(7) Rate effective December 31, 2015. Variable dividend rate resets quarterly thereafter at a per annum rate equal to the greater of 7.00% or 

10-year CMT rate plus 2.375%. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-52

(8) Issued and outstanding shares were 24,922 as of December 31, 2015 and 2014.

(9) Rate effective December 31, 2015. Variable dividend rate resets quarterly thereafter at a per annum rate equal to the greater of 4.50% or 

3-Month LIBOR plus 0.75%. 

(10) On November 21, 2007, we issued 20 million shares of preferred stock in the amount of $500 million. Subsequent to the initial 

issuance, we issued an additional 1.2 million shares in the amount of $30 million on December 14, 2007 under the same terms as the 

initial issuance.

(11) Rate effective December 31, 2015. Variable dividend rate resets quarterly thereafter at a per annum rate equal to the greater of 7.75% or 

3-Month LIBOR plus 4.23%. 

(12) Represents initial call date. Redeemable every five years thereafter.

(13) On May 19, 2008, we issued 80 million shares of preferred stock in the amount of $2.0 billion. Subsequent to the initial issuance, we 

issued an additional 8 million shares in the amount of $200 million on May 22, 2008 and 1 million shares in the amount of $25 million

on June 4, 2008 under the same terms as the initial issuance.

As described under “Senior Preferred Stock and Common Stock Warrant,” we issued senior preferred stock that ranks senior 

to all other series of preferred stock as to both dividends and distributions upon dissolution, liquidation or winding up of the 

company. The senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury also prohibits the payment of dividends on preferred 

stock (other than the senior preferred stock) without the prior written consent of Treasury. The conservator also has 

eliminated preferred stock dividends, other than dividends on the senior preferred stock.

Each series of our preferred stock has no par value, is non-participating, is non-voting and has a liquidation preference equal 

to the stated value per share. None of our preferred stock is convertible into or exchangeable for any of our other stock or 

obligations, with the exception of the Convertible Series 2004-1.

Shares of the Convertible Series 2004-1 Preferred Stock are convertible at any time, at the option of the holders, into shares 

of Fannie Mae common stock at a conversion price of $94.31 per share of common stock (equivalent to a conversion rate of 

1,060.3329 shares of common stock for each share of Series 2004-1 Preferred Stock). The conversion price is adjustable, as 

necessary, to maintain the stated conversion rate into common stock. Events which may trigger an adjustment to the 

conversion price include certain changes in our common stock dividend rate, subdivisions of our outstanding common stock 

into a greater number of shares, combinations of our outstanding common stock into a smaller number of shares and 

issuances of any shares by reclassification of our common stock. No such events have occurred.

Holders of preferred stock (other than the senior preferred stock) are entitled to receive non-cumulative, quarterly dividends 

when, and if, declared by our Board of Directors, but have no right to require redemption of any shares of preferred stock. 

Payment of dividends on preferred stock (other than the senior preferred stock) is not mandatory, but has priority over 

payment of dividends on common stock, which are also declared by the Board of Directors. If dividends on the preferred 

stock are not paid or set aside for payment for a given dividend period, dividends may not be paid on our common stock for 

that period. There were no dividends declared or paid on preferred stock (other than the senior preferred stock) for the years 

ended December 31, 2015 or 2014.

After a specified period, we have the option to redeem preferred stock (other than the senior preferred stock) at its redemption 

price plus the dividend (whether or not declared) for the then-current period accrued to, but excluding, the date of 

redemption. The redemption price is equal to the stated value for all issues of preferred stock except Series O, which has a 

redemption price of $50 to $52.50 depending on the year of redemption and Convertible Series 2004-1, which has a 

redemption price of $105,000 per share. 

Our preferred stock is traded in the over-the-counter market.

Senior Preferred Stock and Common Stock Warrant

On September 8, 2008, we issued to Treasury one million shares of Variable Liquidation Preference Senior Preferred Stock, 

Series 2008-2 (“senior preferred stock”), with an aggregate stated value and initial liquidation preference of $1.0 billion. On 

September 7, 2008, we issued a warrant to purchase common stock to Treasury. The warrant gives Treasury the right to 

purchase shares of our common stock equal to 79.9% of the total number of shares of common stock outstanding on a fully 

diluted basis on the date of exercise. The senior preferred stock and the warrant were issued to Treasury as an initial 

commitment fee in consideration of the commitment from Treasury to provide funds to us under the terms and conditions set 

forth in the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. We did not receive any cash proceeds as a result of issuing these 

shares or the warrant. We have assigned a value of $4.5 billion to Treasury’s commitment, which has been recorded as a 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-53

reduction to additional paid-in-capital and was partially offset by the aggregate fair value of the warrant. There was no impact 

to the total balance of stockholders’ equity as a result of the issuance.

Variable Liquidation Preference Senior Preferred Stock, Series 2008-2

Shares of the senior preferred stock have no par value and have a stated value and initial liquidation preference equal to 

$1,000 per share. The liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock is subject to adjustment. To the extent dividends 

payable in any period are not paid in cash, the dividends will accrue and be added to the liquidation preference of the senior 

preferred stock. In addition, any amounts Treasury pays to us pursuant to its funding commitment provided in the senior 

preferred stock purchase agreement and any quarterly commitment fee payable under the senior preferred stock purchase 

agreement that is not paid in cash to or waived by Treasury will be added to the liquidation preference of the senior preferred 

stock. As of December 31, 2015, we have received a total of $116.1 billion under Treasury’s funding commitment and the 

aggregate liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock was $117.1 billion.

Treasury, as holder of the senior preferred stock, is entitled to receive, when, as and if declared, out of legally available funds, 

cumulative quarterly cash dividends. Dividends declared and paid on our senior preferred stock were $10.3 billion, $20.6 

billion and $82.5 billion for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 and 2013, respectively. Effective January 1, 2013, the 

amount of dividends payable on the senior preferred stock for a dividend period is determined based on our net worth as of 

the end of the immediately preceding fiscal quarter. For each dividend period from January 1, 2013 through and including 

December 31, 2017, the dividend amount will be 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. The capital reserve amount was $2.4 billion and $1.8 

billion for dividend periods in 2014 and 2015, respectively, decreased to $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. For each dividend period 

beginning in 2018, the dividend amount will be the entire amount of our net worth, if any, as of the end of the immediately 

preceding fiscal quarter. 

As a result of these dividend payment provisions and quarterly directives from our conservator, when we have quarterly 

earnings that result in a net worth greater than the applicable capital reserve amount, we will be required to pay dividends to 

Treasury in the next quarter; but if our net worth does not exceed the applicable capital reserve amount as of the end of a 

quarter, then we will not be required to accrue or pay any dividends in the next quarter.

The senior preferred stock ranks prior to our common stock and all other outstanding series of our preferred stock, as well as 

any capital stock we issue in the future, as to both dividends and rights upon liquidation. The senior preferred stock provides 

that we may not declare or pay dividends on, make distributions with respect to, or redeem, purchase or acquire, or make a 

liquidation payment with respect to, any common stock or other securities ranking junior to the senior preferred stock unless 

(1) full cumulative dividends on the outstanding senior preferred stock (including any unpaid dividends added to the 

liquidation preference) have been declared and paid in cash, and (2) all amounts required to be paid with the net proceeds of 

any issuance of capital stock for cash (as described in the following paragraph) have been paid in cash. In addition, as 

described below under “Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement with Treasury—Covenants,” the covenants under the 

senior preferred stock purchase agreement require that we obtain Treasury’s prior written consent before declaring or paying 

any dividends or other distributions with respect to our equity securities (other than the senior preferred stock or the warrant) 

and before redeeming, purchasing, retiring or otherwise acquiring any of our equity securities (other than the senior preferred 

stock or the warrant). Shares of the senior preferred stock are not convertible. Shares of the senior preferred stock have no 

general or special voting rights, other than those set forth in the certificate of designation for the senior preferred stock or 

otherwise required by law. The consent of holders of at least two-thirds of all outstanding shares of senior preferred stock is 

generally required to amend the terms of the senior preferred stock or to create any class or series of stock that ranks prior to 

or on parity with the senior preferred stock.

We are not permitted to redeem the senior preferred stock prior to the termination of Treasury’s funding commitment under 

the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. Moreover, we are not permitted to pay down the liquidation preference of the 

outstanding shares of senior preferred stock except to the extent of (1) accrued and unpaid dividends previously added to the 

liquidation preference and not previously paid down; and (2) quarterly commitment fees previously added to the liquidation 

preference and not previously paid down. In addition to these exceptions, if we issue any shares of capital stock for cash 

while the senior preferred stock is outstanding (which requires Treasury’s approval), we are required to use the net proceeds 

of the issuance to pay down the liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock; however, the liquidation preference of 

each share of senior preferred stock may not be paid down below $1,000 per share prior to the termination of Treasury’s 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-54

funding commitment. Following the termination of Treasury’s funding commitment, we may pay down the liquidation 

preference of all outstanding shares of senior preferred stock at any time, in whole or in part.

Common Stock Warrant

The warrant gives Treasury the right to purchase shares of our common stock equal to 79.9% of the total number of shares of 

our common stock outstanding on a fully diluted basis on the date of exercise. The warrant may be exercised in whole or in 

part at any time on or before September 7, 2028, by delivery to Fannie Mae of: (a) a notice of exercise; (b) payment of the 

exercise price of $0.00001 per share; and (c) the warrant. If the market price of one share of common stock is greater than the 

exercise price, in lieu of exercising the warrant by payment of the exercise price, Treasury may elect to receive shares equal 

to the value of the warrant (or portion thereof being canceled) pursuant to the formula specified in the warrant. Upon exercise 

of the warrant, Treasury may assign the right to receive the shares of common stock issuable upon exercise to any other 

person. If the warrant is exercised, the stated value of the common stock issued will be reclassified as “Common stock” in 

our consolidated balance sheets. Treasury has not exercised the warrant.

Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement with Treasury

Funding Commitment

Under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, Treasury made a commitment to provide funding, under certain 

conditions, to eliminate deficits 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 December 31, 2015. The aggregate liquidation preference of the senior 

preferred stock, including the initial aggregate liquidation preference of $1.0 billion, remained at $117.1 billion as of 

December 31, 2015. 

While we had a positive net worth as of December 31, 2015, in some future periods we could have a net worth deficit and, if 

so, will be required to obtain additional funding from Treasury pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. As 

of December 31, 2015, the remaining amount of funding available to us under the agreement was $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.

The senior preferred stock purchase agreement provides that the deficiency amount will be calculated differently if we 

become subject to receivership or other liquidation process. The deficiency amount may be increased above the otherwise 

applicable amount upon our mutual written agreement with Treasury. In addition, if the Director of FHFA determines that the 

Director will be mandated by law to appoint a receiver for us unless our capital is increased by receiving funds under the 

commitment in an amount up to the deficiency amount (subject to the maximum amount that may be funded under the 

agreement), then FHFA, in its capacity as our conservator, may request that Treasury provide funds to us in such amount. The 

senior preferred stock purchase agreement also provides that, if we have a deficiency amount as of the date of completion of 

the liquidation of our assets, we may request funds from Treasury in an amount up to the deficiency amount (subject to the 

maximum amount that may be funded under the agreement). Any amounts that we draw under the senior preferred stock 

purchase agreement will be added to the liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock. No additional shares of senior 

preferred stock are required to be issued under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement.

Commitment Fee

Pursuant to the August 2012 amendment to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement described in “Note 1, Summary of 

Significant Accounting Policies,” effective January 1, 2013, the periodic commitment fee under the agreement will not be set, 

accrue or be payable, as long as the dividend payment provisions described above remain in effect.

Covenants 

The senior preferred stock purchase agreement provides that, until the senior preferred stock is repaid or redeemed in full, we 

may not, without the prior written consent of Treasury:

• Declare or pay any dividend (preferred or otherwise) or make any other distribution with respect to any Fannie Mae 

equity securities (other than with respect to the senior preferred stock or warrant);

• Redeem, purchase, retire or otherwise acquire any Fannie Mae equity securities (other than the senior preferred stock or 

warrant);
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-55

• Sell or issue any Fannie Mae equity securities (other than the common stock issuable upon exercise of the warrant or as 

required by the terms of any binding agreement in effect on the date of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement);

• Terminate the conservatorship (other than in connection with a receivership);

• Sell, transfer, lease or otherwise dispose of any assets, other than dispositions for fair market value: (a) to a limited life 

regulated entity (in the context of receivership); (b) of assets and properties in the ordinary course of business, 

consistent with past practice; (c) of assets and properties having fair market value individually or in aggregate less than 

$250 million in one transaction or a series of related transactions; (d) in connection with a liquidation of Fannie Mae by 

a receiver; (e) of cash or cash equivalents for cash or cash equivalents; or (f) to the extent necessary to comply with the 

covenant described below relating to the reduction of our mortgage assets;

• Incur indebtedness that would result in our aggregate indebtedness exceeding $563.6 billion through December 31, 

2015. For every year thereafter, our debt cap will equal 120% of the amount of mortgage assets we are allowed to own 

under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement on December 31 of the immediately preceding calendar year;

• Issue any subordinated debt;

• Enter into a corporate reorganization, recapitalization, merger, acquisition or similar event; or

• Engage in transactions with affiliates unless the transaction is (a) pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase 

agreement, the senior preferred stock or the warrant, (b) upon arm’s-length terms or (c) a transaction undertaken in the 

ordinary course or pursuant to a contractual obligation or customary employment arrangement in existence on the date 

of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement.

The agreement, as amended, also provides that we may not own mortgage assets in excess of $399.2 billion as of 

December 31, 2015. On each December 31 thereafter, 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 2014, FHFA requested that we revise our portfolio plan to cap the 

portfolio each year at 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. 

Under the agreement, the effect of changes in generally accepted accounting principles that occurred subsequent to the date 

of the agreement and that require us to recognize additional mortgage assets in our consolidated balance sheets are not 

considered for purposes of evaluating our compliance with the limitation on the amount of mortgage assets we may own. In 

addition, the definition of indebtedness in the agreement was revised to clarify that it also does not give effect to any change 

that may be made in respect of the FASB guidance on accounting for transfers of financial assets or any similar accounting 

guidance.

In addition, the agreement provides that we may not enter into any new compensation arrangements with, or increase 

amounts or benefits payable under existing compensation arrangements of, any named executive officer or other executive 

officer (each as defined by SEC rules) without the consent of the Director of FHFA, in consultation with the Secretary of the 

Treasury. As of December 31, 2015, we were in compliance with the senior preferred stock purchase agreement covenants.

We are required to provide an annual risk management plan to Treasury no later than December 15 of each year we remain in 

conservatorship, beginning in 2012. Each annual risk management plan is required to set out our strategy for reducing our 

risk profile and to describe the actions we will take to reduce the financial and operational risks associated with each of our 

business segments. Each plan must include an assessment of our performance against the planned actions described in the 

prior year’s plan. We submitted our most recent annual risk management plan to Treasury in December 2015. 

Termination Provisions

The senior preferred stock purchase agreement provides that Treasury’s funding commitment will terminate under any the 

following circumstances: (1) the completion of our liquidation and fulfillment of Treasury’s obligations under its funding 

commitment at that time, (2) the payment in full of, or reasonable provision for, all of our liabilities (whether or not 

contingent, including mortgage guaranty obligations), or (3) the funding by Treasury of the maximum amount under the 

agreement. In addition, Treasury may terminate its funding commitment and declare the senior preferred stock purchase 

agreement null and void if a court vacates, modifies, amends, conditions, enjoins, stays or otherwise affects the appointment 

of the conservator or otherwise curtails the conservator’s powers. Treasury may not terminate its funding commitment solely 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-56

by reason of our being in conservatorship, receivership or other insolvency proceeding, or due to our financial condition or 

any adverse change in our financial condition.

Waivers and Amendments

The senior preferred stock purchase agreement provides that most provisions of the agreement may be waived or amended by 

mutual written agreement of the parties. No waiver or amendment of the agreement, however, may decrease Treasury’s 

aggregate funding commitment or add conditions to Treasury’s funding commitment if the waiver or amendment would 

adversely affect in any material respect the holders of our debt securities or guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS.

Third-party Enforcement Rights

If we default on payments with respect to our debt securities or guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS and Treasury fails to perform its 

obligations under its funding commitment, and if we and/or the conservator are not diligently pursuing remedies in respect of 

that failure, the holders of these debt securities or Fannie Mae MBS may file a claim for relief in the United States Court of 

Federal Claims. The relief, if granted, would require Treasury to fund to us the lesser of (1) the amount necessary to cure the 

payment defaults on our debt and Fannie Mae MBS and (2) the lesser of (a) the deficiency amount and (b) the maximum 

amount available under the agreement less the aggregate amount of funding previously provided under the commitment. Any 

payment that Treasury makes under those circumstances would be treated for all purposes as a draw under the senior 

preferred stock purchase agreement that would increase the liquidation preference of the senior preferred stock.

Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income

The following table displays our accumulated other comprehensive income.

As of December 31,

2015 2014 2013

(Dollars in millions)

Net unrealized gains on AFS securities for which we have not recorded OTTI, net of tax. . . . . . $ 455 $ 592 $ 365

Net unrealized gains on AFS securities for which we have recorded OTTI, net of tax. . . . . . . . . 903 1,529 1,262

Prior service credit (cost) and actuarial gains (losses), net of amortization, and other, net of tax. 49 (388) (424)

Accumulated other comprehensive income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,407 $ 1,733 $ 1,203

The table below displays changes in accumulated other comprehensive income, net of tax.

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014

AFS 

Securities(1) Other(2) Total

AFS 

Securities(1) Other Total

(Dollars in millions)

Beginning balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 2,121 $ (388) $1,733 $ 1,627 $ (424) $ 1,203

 Other comprehensive income before

reclassifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (280) 17 (263) 722 37 759

 Amounts reclassified from other

comprehensive income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (483) 420 (63) (228) (1) (229)

 Net other comprehensive income . . . . . . . . . . . (763) 437 (326) 494 36 530

Ending balance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,358 $ 49 $1,407 $ 2,121 $ (388) $ 1,733

__________

(1) The amounts reclassified from AOCI 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 consolidated statements 

of operations and comprehensive income. 

(2) The amounts reclassified from AOCI includes a reclassification adjustment related to the termination of the defined benefit pension 

plans, which is recorded in “Administrative expenses” and “Benefit (provision) for federal income taxes,” in our consolidated 

statements of operations and comprehensive income. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-57

14. Regulatory Capital Requirements

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. FHFA has stated that it does not intend to report our critical capital, risk-based capital or subordinated debt 

levels during the conservatorship. Our regulatory capital classification measures are determined based on guidance from 

FHFA, in which FHFA (1) directed us, for loans backing Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties, to continue reporting our 

minimum capital requirements based on 0.45% of the unpaid principal balance and critical capital based on 0.25% of the 

unpaid principal balance, regardless of whether these loans have been consolidated pursuant to accounting rules, and 

(2) issued a regulatory interpretation stating that our minimum capital requirements are not automatically affected by the 

consolidation accounting guidance. Additionally, our regulatory capital classification measures exclude the funds provided to 

us by Treasury pursuant to the senior preferred stock purchase agreement, as the senior preferred stock does not qualify as 

core capital due to its cumulative dividend provisions.

Pursuant to the GSE Act, if the Director of FHFA makes a written determination that our total assets are less than our total 

obligations (a net worth deficit) for a period of 60 days, FHFA is mandated by law to appoint a receiver for Fannie Mae. 

Treasury’s funding commitment under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement is intended to ensure that we avoid a net 

worth deficit, in order to avoid this mandatory trigger of receivership. In order to avoid a net worth deficit, our conservator 

may request funds on our behalf from Treasury under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement.

FHFA has directed us, during the time we are under conservatorship, to focus on managing to a positive net worth. We had a 

positive net worth of $4.1 billion and $3.7 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively.

The following table displays our regulatory capital classification measures.

As of December 31,

2015 2014

(Dollars in millions)

Core capital(1)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (114,526) $ (115,202)

Statutory minimum capital requirement(2)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25,144 27,044

Deficit of core capital over statutory minimum capital requirement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (139,670) $ (142,246)

__________

(1) The sum of (a) the stated value of our outstanding common stock (common stock less treasury stock); (b) the stated value of our 

outstanding non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock; (c) our paid-in capital; and (d) our retained earnings (accumulated deficit). Core 

capital does not include: (a) accumulated other comprehensive income or (b) senior preferred stock.

(2) Generally, the sum of (a) 2.50% of on-balance sheet assets, except those underlying Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties; (b) 0.45%

of the unpaid principal balance of outstanding Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties; and (c) up to 0.45% of other off-balance sheet 

obligations, which may be adjusted by the Director of FHFA under certain circumstances.

Our critical capital requirement is generally equal to the sum of: (1) 1.25% of on-balance sheet assets, except those 

underlying Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties; (2) 0.25% of the unpaid principal balance of outstanding Fannie Mae 

MBS held by third parties; and (3) 0.25% of other off-balance sheet obligations, which may be adjusted by the Director of 

FHFA under certain circumstances.

As of December 31, 2015 and 2014, we had a minimum capital deficiency of $139.7 billion and $142.2 billion, respectively. 

Under the terms of the senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury, beginning January 1, 2013, we are required 

to pay Treasury each quarter dividends when, as and if declared, equal to the excess of our net worth as of the end of the 

immediately preceding fiscal quarter over an applicable capital reserve amount. As a result, in periods in which we have net 

worth, our minimum capital deficiency will decline to the extent of our net worth but the deficiency will increase in the 

subsequent period as we pay Treasury the corresponding senior preferred stock dividend. See “Note 13, Equity” for more 

information on capital and the terms of our senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. Set forth below are 

additional restrictions related to our capital requirements.

Restrictions on Capital Distributions and Dividends

Restrictions Under GSE Act. Under the GSE Act, FHFA has the authority to prohibit capital distributions, including payment 

of dividends, if we fail to meet our capital requirements. If FHFA classifies us as significantly undercapitalized, we must 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-58

obtain the approval of the Director of FHFA 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. The Director of FHFA, however, 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.

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 directs 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 ultimately require the payment of our entire net worth to Treasury. 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 “Note 13, Equity.”

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.

15. Concentrations of Credit Risk

Concentrations of credit risk arise when a number of customers and counterparties engage in similar activities or have similar 

economic characteristics that make them susceptible to similar changes in industry conditions, which could affect their ability 

to meet their contractual obligations. Based on our assessment of business conditions that could impact our financial results, 

we have determined that concentrations of credit risk exist among single-family and multifamily borrowers (including 

geographic concentrations and loans with certain higher-risk characteristics), mortgage sellers and servicers, mortgage 

insurers, financial guarantors, multifamily lenders with risk sharing, derivative counterparties and parties associated with our 

off-balance sheet transactions. Concentrations for each of these groups are discussed below.

Single-Family Loan Borrowers

Regional economic conditions may affect a borrower’s ability to repay his or her mortgage loan and the property value 

underlying the loan. Geographic concentrations increase the exposure of our portfolio to changes in credit risk. Single-family 

borrowers are primarily affected by home prices and interest rates. The geographic dispersion of our single-family business 

has been consistently diversified over the years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, with our largest exposures in the 

Western region of the United States, which represented approximately 28% of our single-family conventional guaranty book 

of business as of December 31, 2015 and 2014. Except for California, where approximately 20% of the gross unpaid 

principal balance of our single-family conventional mortgage loans held or securitized in Fannie Mae MBS as of 

December 31, 2015 and 2014, were located, no other significant concentrations existed in any state.

To manage credit risk and comply with legal requirements, we typically require primary mortgage insurance or other credit 

enhancements if the current LTV ratio (i.e., the ratio of the unpaid principal balance of a loan to the current value of the 

property that serves as collateral) of a single-family conventional mortgage loan is greater than 80% when the loan is 

delivered to us. 

Multifamily Loan Borrowers

Numerous factors affect a multifamily borrower’s ability to repay the loan and the value of the property underlying the loan. 

The most significant factors affecting credit risk are rental income, capitalization rates for the mortgaged property, and 

general economic conditions. The average unpaid principal balance for multifamily loans is significantly larger than for 

single-family borrowers and, therefore, individual defaults for multifamily borrowers can result in more significant losses. 

However, we continually monitor the performance and risk characteristics of our multifamily loans, underlying properties 

and borrowers on an ongoing basis. Our multifamily geographic concentrations have been consistently diversified over the 

years ended December 31, 2015 and 2014, with our largest exposure in the Western region of the United States, which 

represented 30% and 31% of our multifamily guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-59

Except for California, Texas and New York, no significant concentrations existed in any states as of December 31, 2015. As 

of December 31, 2015, 23%, 11% and 10% of the gross unpaid principal balance of multifamily mortgage loans held by us or 

securitized in Fannie Mae MBS were located in California, Texas and New York, respectively. As of December 31, 2014, 

23%, 11% and 11% of the gross unpaid principal balance of multifamily mortgage loans held by us or securitized in Fannie 

Mae MBS were located in California, Texas and New York, respectively. No significant concentrations existed in any other 

states as of December 31, 2014.

As part of our multifamily risk management activities, we perform detailed loan reviews that evaluate borrower and 

geographic concentrations, lender qualifications, counterparty risk, property performance and contract compliance. We 

generally require mortgage servicers to submit periodic property operating information and condition reviews, allowing us to 

monitor the performance of individual loans. We use this information to evaluate the credit quality of our portfolio, identify 

potential problem loans and initiate appropriate loss mitigation activities.

The following table displays the regional geographic concentration of single-family and multifamily loans in our guaranty 

book of business.

Geographic Concentration(1)

Percentage of Single-Family 

Conventional Guaranty Book 

of Business(2)

Percentage of Multifamily 

Guaranty Book of Business(3)

As of December 31, As of December 31,

2015 2014 2015 2014

Midwest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 % 15 % 9 % 9 %

Northeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 19 17 18

Southeast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 22 23 22

Southwest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 16 21 20

West. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 28 30 31

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100 % 100 % 100 % 100 %

__________

(1) Midwest consists of IL, IN, IA, MI, MN, NE, ND, OH, SD, WI; Northeast consists of CT, DE, ME, MA, NH, NJ, NY, PA, PR, RI, VT, 

VI; Southeast consists of AL, DC, FL, GA, KY, MD, MS, NC, SC, TN, VA, WV; Southwest consists of AZ, AR, CO, KS, LA, MO, 

NM, OK, TX, UT; West consists of AK, CA, GU, HI, ID, MT, NV, OR, WA and WY.

(2) Consists of the portion of our single-family conventional guaranty book of business for which we have detailed loan level information, 

which constituted over 99% of our total single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015 and 2014.

(3) Consists of the portion of our multifamily guaranty book of business for which we have detailed loan level information, which 

constituted 99% of our total multifamily guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015 and 2014.

Risk Characteristics of our 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 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 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-60

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 December 31,

2015(1) 2014(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% 0.37% 1.59% 1.27% 0.38% 1.99%

Percentage of single-family conventional loans(4)

. . 1.46 0.41 1.55 1.47 0.43 1.89

As of December 31,

2015(1) 2014(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% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 10.76% 5% 10.98%

Geographical distribution:

California . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 0.58 20 0.70

Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 2.86 6 4.42

New Jersey. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4.87 4 5.78

New York. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 3.55 5 4.17

All other states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 1.34 65 1.57

Product distribution:

Alt-A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 6.53 4 7.77

Vintages:

2005 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5.67 3 6.18

2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 8.49 3 9.61

2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 9.73 4 10.79

2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 5.84 2 6.27

All other vintages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 0.77 88 0.88

__________

(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% of our total single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015 and 

2014.

(2) Consists of single-family conventional loans that were 90 days or more past due or in the foreclosure process as of December 31, 2015

and 2014.

(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 December 31,

2015(1)(2) 2014(1)(2)

30 Days

Delinquent

Seriously 

Delinquent(3)

30 Days

Delinquent

Seriously 

Delinquent(3)

Percentage of multifamily guaranty book of business. . . . . . . . . . . . 0.03% 0.07% 0.04% 0.05%
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-61

As of December 31,

2015(1) 2014(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% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3% 0.40% 3% 0.31%

Less than or equal to 80% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97 0.06 97 0.04

Current DSCR less than 1.0(5). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1.51 3 0.83

__________

(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 December 31, 2015 and 2014, excluding loans 

that have been defeased.

(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.

Alt-A Loans and Securities

We own and guarantee Alt-A mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. An Alt-A mortgage loan generally refers to a 

mortgage loan that has been underwritten with reduced or alternative documentation than that required for a full 

documentation mortgage loan but may also include other alternative product features. As a result, Alt-A mortgage loans 

generally have a higher risk of default than non-Alt-A mortgage loans. In reporting our Alt-A exposure, we have classified 

mortgage loans as Alt-A if and only if the lenders that deliver the mortgage loans to us have classified the loans as Alt-A, 

based on documentation or other product features. We have classified private-label mortgage-related securities held in our 

investment portfolio as Alt-A if the securities were labeled as such when issued. 

We apply our classification criteria in order to discuss our exposure to Alt-A loans. 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 reduce 

our risk associated with some of these loans through credit enhancements, as described below under “Mortgage Insurers.” 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. 

The Alt-A mortgage loans and Fannie Mae MBS backed by Alt-A loans of $103.1 billion in unpaid principal balance 

represented 4% of our single-family mortgage credit book of business as of December 31, 2015, compared with $117.6 

billion in unpaid principal balance which represented 4% of our single-family mortgage credit book of business as of 

December 31, 2014. 

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 44% of our single-family guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015, compared with 

approximately 46% as of December 31, 2014. Our ten largest multifamily mortgage servicers, including their affiliates, 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-62

serviced approximately 70% of our multifamily guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015, compared with 

approximately 67% as of December 31, 2014.

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 $117.9 billion and $109.6 

billion on the single-family mortgage loans in our guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, 

which represented 4% of our single-family guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015 and 2014. Our primary 

mortgage insurance coverage risk in force was $117.2 billion and $108.7 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, 

respectively. Our pool mortgage insurance coverage risk in force was $736 million and $852 million as of December 31, 

2015 and 2014, respectively. Our top four mortgage insurance companies provided 79% of our mortgage insurance coverage 

risk in force as of December 31, 2015 and 2014.

Of our largest primary mortgage insurers, PMI Mortgage Insurance Co. (“PMI”), Triad Guaranty Insurance Corporation 

(“Triad”) and Republic Mortgage Insurance Company (“RMIC”) 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 $10.1 billion, or 9%, of our risk in force 

mortgage insurance coverage of our single-family guaranty book of business as of December 31, 2015.

PMI and Triad have been paying only a portion of policyholder claims and deferring the remaining portion. PMI is currently 

paying 70% of claims under its mortgage insurance policies in cash and is deferring the remaining 30%, and Triad is 

currently paying 75% of claims in cash and deferring the remaining 25%. It is uncertain whether PMI or Triad will be 

permitted in the future to pay any remaining deferred policyholder claims and/or increase or decrease the amount of cash they 

pay on claims. RMIC is no longer deferring payments on policyholder claims and has paid us amounts of its previously 

outstanding deferred payment obligations to bring payment on our claims to 100%; however, RMIC remains in run-off and 

under the supervisory control of its state regulator. We were not paid interest to compensate us for the amount of time 

RMIC’s deferred payment obligations were outstanding.

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 

of December 31, 2015 and 2014, the amount by which our estimated benefit from mortgage insurance reduced our total loss 

reserves was $2.3 billion and $4.1 billion, respectively.

We had outstanding receivables of $1.2 billion recorded in “Other assets” in our consolidated balance sheets as of 

December 31, 2015 and $1.4 billion as of December 31, 2014 related to amounts claimed on insured, defaulted loans 

excluding government insured loans. Of this amount, $241 million as of December 31, 2015 and $269 million as of 

December 31, 2014 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 $770 million as of December 31, 2015 and $799 million

as of December 31, 2014. The valuation allowance reduces our claim receivable to the amount which is considered probable 

of collection as of December 31, 2015 and 2014.

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 $3.2 billion and $4.6 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. Of the total unpaid principal 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-63

balance, approximately 68% was mortgage revenue bonds as of December 31, 2015, compared with 70% as of December 31, 

2014, and the remaining amount was composed of Alt-A private-label securities, subprime private-label securities and other 

mortgage-related securities.

If a financial guarantor fails to meet its obligations to us with respect to the securities for which we have obtained financial 

guarantees, it could reduce the fair value of our mortgage-related securities and result in financial losses to us, which could 

have an adverse effect on our earnings, liquidity, financial condition and net worth. With the exception of Ambac Assurance 

Corporation (“Ambac”), which is operating under a deferred payment obligation, none of our remaining non-governmental 

financial guarantor counterparties has failed to repay us for claims under guaranty contracts. Effective July 21, 2014, the 

terms of Ambac’s order regarding its deferred payment arrangements changed to increase its cash payments on policyholder 

claims from 25% to 45% and to provide for payment of sufficient amounts of its outstanding deferred payment obligations to 

bring payment on those claims to 45%. We are expecting full cash payment from only half of our non-governmental financial 

guarantor counterparties, and we are uncertain of the level of payments we will ultimately receive from the remaining 

counterparties. Ambac provided coverage on $1.7 billion, or 52%, of our total non-governmental guarantees as of 

December 31, 2015. When assessing our securities for impairment, we consider the benefit of non-governmental financial 

guarantees from those guarantors that we determine are creditworthy, although we continue to seek collection of any amounts 

due to us from all counterparties.

We are also the beneficiary of financial guarantees included in securities issued by Freddie Mac, the federal government and 

its agencies that totaled $16.7 billion as of December 31, 2015 and $19.2 billion as of December 31, 2014.

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 these risk sharing agreements on both Delegated Underwriting and Servicing (“DUS”) and non-DUS multifamily loans 

was $46.2 billion as of December 31, 2015, compared with $41.7 billion as of December 31, 2014. As of December 31, 2015, 

40% of our maximum potential loss recovery on multifamily loans was from four DUS lenders, compared with 39% as of 

December 31, 2014.

Parties Associated with Our Off-Balance Sheet Transactions. We enter into financial instrument transactions that create offbalance sheet credit risk in the normal course of our business. These transactions are designed to meet the financial needs of 

our customers, and manage our credit, market or liquidity risks.

We have entered into guarantees for which we have not recognized a guaranty obligation in our consolidated balance sheets 

relating to periods prior to 2003, the effective date of accounting guidance related to guaranty accounting. Our maximum 

potential exposure under these guarantees was $5.6 billion as of December 31, 2015 and $6.5 billion as of December 31, 

2014. If we were required to make payments under these guarantees, we would pursue recovery through our right to the 

collateral backing the underlying loans, available credit enhancements and recourse with third parties that provided a 

maximum coverage of $2.4 billion as of December 31, 2015 and $2.7 billion as of December 31, 2014.

Derivatives Counterparties. For information on credit risk associated with our derivative transactions and repurchase 

agreements see “Note 9, Derivative Instruments” and “Note 16, Netting Arrangements.”
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-64

16. 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 consolidated balance sheets.

As of December 31, 2015

Net Amount

Presented in the

Consolidated

Balance Sheets

Amounts Not Offset in the

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)
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-65

As of December 31, 2014

Net Amount

Presented in the

Consolidated

Balance Sheets

Amounts Not Offset in the

Consolidated Balance Sheets

Gross

Amount

Gross 

Amount 

Offset(1)

Financial 

Instruments(2) Collateral(3)

Net

Amount

(Dollars in millions)

Assets:

OTC risk management derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 5,461 $ (5,428) $ 33 $ — $ (33) $ —

Cleared risk management derivatives. . . . . . . . . . . 927 242 1,169 — — 1,169

Mortgage commitment derivatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . 255 — 255 (116) (7) 132

Total derivative assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,643 (5,186) 1,457 (4)(116) (40) 1,301

Securities purchased under agreements to resell or 

similar arrangements(5)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47,550 — 47,550 — (47,550) —

Total assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 54,193 $ (5,186) $ 49,007 $ (116) $ (47,590) $ 1,301

Liabilities:

OTC risk management derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (7,836) $ 7,567 $ (269) $ — $ — $ (269)

Cleared risk management derivatives. . . . . . . . . . . (2,627) 2,627 — — — —

Mortgage commitment derivatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . (344) — (344) 116 — (228)

Total derivative liabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (10,807) 10,194 (613)

(4)

116 — (497)

Securities sold under agreements to repurchase or

similar arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (50) — (50) — 50 —

Total liabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (10,857) $ 10,194 $ (663) $ 116 $ 50 $ (497)

________

(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 consolidated balance 

sheets.

(3) Represents collateral posted or received that has neither been recognized nor offset in our consolidated balance sheets. Does not include 

collateral held in excess of our exposure. The fair value of non-cash collateral accepted for OTC risk management derivatives was $37 

million and $51 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The fair value of non-cash collateral accepted for securities 

purchased under agreements to resell or similar arrangements was $38.0 billion and $47.6 billion, of which $36.2 billion and $41.9 

billion could be sold or repledged as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. None of the underlying collateral was sold or 

repledged as of December 31, 2015 or 2014. The fair value of non-cash collateral we pledged for securities sold under agreements to 

repurchase was $62 million and $50 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, which the counterparty was permitted to sell or 

repledge. The fair value of non-cash collateral we pledged for cleared risk management derivatives was $135 million as of 

December 31, 2015, which the counterparty was permitted to sell or repledge.

(4) Excludes derivative assets of $28 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, and derivative liabilities of $2 million and $1 million

recognized in our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively, that are not subject to enforceable 

master netting arrangements.

(5) Includes $10.6 billion and $16.6 billion of securities purchased under agreements to resell classified as “Cash and cash equivalents” in 

our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, 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 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.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-66

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 

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.

17. 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 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-67

Recurring Changes in Fair Value 

The following tables display our assets and liabilities measured in our 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 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)

Recurring fair value measurements:

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 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-68

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
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-69

Fair Value Measurements as of December 31, 2014

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ — $ 4,635 $ 305 $ — $ 4,940

Freddie Mac. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,369 — — 1,369

Ginnie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 166 — — 166

Alt-A private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 323 597 — 920

Subprime private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1,307 — 1,307

CMBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 2,515 — — 2,515

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 722 — 722

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 99 — 99

Non-mortgage-related securities:

U.S. Treasury securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,466 — — — 19,466

Total trading securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,466 9,008 3,030 — 31,504

Available-for-sale securities:

Mortgage-related securities:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 5,639 — — 5,639

Freddie Mac. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 5,522 6 — 5,528

Ginnie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 476 — — 476

Alt-A private-label securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 2,538 3,140 — 5,678

Subprime private-label securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 5,240 — 5,240

CMBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 1,397 — — 1,397

Mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 4,023 — 4,023

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 2 2,671 — 2,673

Total available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 15,574 15,080 — 30,654

Mortgage loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 13,796 1,833 — 15,629

Other assets:

Risk management derivatives:

Swaps. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 6,085 150 — 6,235

Swaptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 153 — — 153

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 28 — 28

Netting adjustment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — (5,186) (5,186)

Mortgage commitment derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 251 4 — 255

Total other assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 6,489 182 (5,186) 1,485

Total assets at fair value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 19,466 $ 44,867 $ 20,125 $ (5,186) $ 79,272
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-70

Fair Value Measurements as of December 31, 2014

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ — $ 6,040 $ 363 $ — $ 6,403

Total of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 6,040 363 — 6,403

Of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 18,956 527 — 19,483

Total long-term debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 24,996 890 — 25,886

Other liabilities:

Risk management derivatives:

Swaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 9,339 133 — 9,472

Swaptions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 991 — — 991

Other. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — 1 — 1

Netting adjustment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — (10,194) (10,194)

Mortgage commitment derivatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . — 341 3 — 344

Total other liabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 10,671 137 (10,194) 614

Total liabilities at fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ — $ 35,667 $1,027 $(10,194) $ 26,500

__________

(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 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-71

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 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 Year Ended December 31, 2015

Total Gains (Losses) 

(Realized/Unrealized)

Net Unrealized 

Gains (Losses) 

Included in Net 

Income Related 

to Assets and 

Liabilities Still 

Held as of 

December 31, 

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,

December 31,

2015

(Dollars in millions)

Trading securities:

Mortgage-related:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . $ 305 $ (27) $ — $ — $ (2) $ — $ — $ (278) $ 2 $ — $ —

Alt-A private-label

securities . . . . . . 597 36 — — (267) — (45) (44) 28 305 15

Subprime privatelabel securities. . 1,307 36 — — (611) — (88) — — 644 10

Mortgage revenue

bonds. . . . . . . . . 722 (41) — — (220) — (12) — — 449 (33)

Other. . . . . . . . . . . 99 4 — — (100) — (3) — — — —

Total trading securities . $ 3,030 $ 8 (6)(7) $ — $ — $ (1,200) $ — $ (148) $ (322) $ 30 $ 1,398 $ (8)

Available-for-sale

securities:

Mortgage-related:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . $ — $ — $ — $ 421 $ (425) $ — $ (8) $ — $ 12 $ — $ —

Freddie Mac . . . . . . 6 — — — — — (1) (2) 1 4 —

Alt-A private-label

securities . . . . . . 3,140 215 (173) — (1,504) — (436) (538) 337 1,041 —

Subprime privatelabel securities. . 5,240 599 (382) — (1,575) — (601) — — 3,281 —

Mortgage revenue

bonds. . . . . . . . . 4,023 51 (104) — (410) — (859) — — 2,701 —

Other . . . . . . . . . . 2,671 (26) (2) — (1,012) — (227) — — 1,404 —

Total available-for-sale

securities . . . . . . . . .

$ 15,080 $ 839

(7)(8) $ (661) $ 421 $ (4,926) $ — $ (2,132) $ (540) $ 350 $ 8,431 $ —

Mortgage loans . . . . . . . $ 1,833 $ 57 (6)(7) $ — $ 5 $ — $ — $ (350) $ (377) $ 309 $ 1,477 $ (20)

Net derivatives. . . . . . . . 45 (55)

(6) — — — (4) 169 (7) 9 157 (2)

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae:

Senior floating . . . . $ (363) $ (6) $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ (369) $ (6)

Of consolidated trusts. (527) (9) — — — (66) 57 228 (179) (496) 17

Total long-term debt . . . $ (890) $ (15)

(6) $ — $ — $ — $ (66) $ 57 $ 228 $ (179) $ (865) $ 11
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-72

Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)

For the Year Ended December 31, 2014

Total Gains (Losses) 

(Realized/Unrealized)

Net Unrealized 

Gains (Losses) 

Included in Net 

Income Related 

to Assets and 

Liabilities Still 

Held as of 

December 31, 

2014(5)(6)

Balance, 

December 31, 

2013

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,

December

31, 2014

(Dollars in millions)

Trading securities:

Mortgage-related:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . $ 42 $ (27) $ — $ 6 $ — $ — $ (2) $ (39) $ 325 $ 305 $ (18)

Freddie Mac. . . . . . 2 — — — — — — (2) — — —

Alt-A private-label

securities . . . . . 618 88 — — (58) — (81) (226) 256 597 97

Subprime privatelabel securities .

1,448 270 — — (241) — (170) — — 1,307 234

Mortgage revenue

bonds . . . . . . . .

565 168 — — — — (11) — — 722 160

Other . . . . . . . . . . 99 13 — — — — (13) — — 99 13

Total trading securities. $ 2,774 $ 512

(6)(7)

$ — $ 6 $ (299) $ — $ (277) $ (267) $ 581 $ 3,030 $ 486

Available-for-sale

securities:

Mortgage-related:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . $ 7 $ — $ — $ — $ — $ — $ (1) $ (8) $ 2 $ — $ —

Freddie Mac. . . . . . 8 — — — — — (1) (2) 1 6 —

Alt-A private-label

securities . . . . . 3,791 172 (26) — (393) — (471) (1,738) 1,805 3,140 —

Subprime privatelabel securities . 7,068 447 301 — (1,730) — (846) — — 5,240 —

Mortgage revenue

bonds . . . . . . . . 5,253 (32) 554 — (70) — (1,682) — — 4,023 —

Other . . . . . . . . . . 2,885 19 103 — — — (336) — — 2,671 —

Total available-for-sale

securities. . . . . . . . . $ 19,012 $ 606

(7)(8)

$ 932 $ — $(2,193) $ — $ (3,337) $(1,748) $ 1,808 $ 15,080 $ —

Mortgage loans. . . . . . . $ 2,704 $ 260 (6)(7) $ — $ 36 $ — $ — $ (344) $(1,113) $ 290 $ 1,833 $ 53

Net derivatives . . . . . . . (40) 103 (6) — — — — (21) (2) 5 45 77

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae:

Senior floating . . . $ (955) $ (142) $ — $ — $ — $ (750) $ 19 $ 1,465 $ — $ (363) $ (97)

Of consolidated

trusts . . . . . . . . . .

(518) (53) — — — (1) 62 111 (128) (527) (49)

Total long-term debt. . . $ (1,473) $ (195)

(6) $ — $ — $ — $ (751) $ 81 $ 1,576 $ (128) $ (890) $ (146)
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-73

Fair Value Measurements Using Significant Unobservable Inputs (Level 3)

For the Year Ended December 31, 2013

Total Gains (Losses) 

(Realized/Unrealized)

Net Unrealized 

Gains (Losses) 

Included in Net 

Income Related 

to Assets and 

Liabilities Still 

Held as of 

December 31, 

2013(5)(6)

Balance, 

December 31, 

2012

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,

December 31,

2013

(Dollars in millions)

Trading securities:

Mortgage-related:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . $ 68 $ (9) $ — $ — $ — $ — $ (17) $ — $ — $ 42 $ (9)

Freddie Mac . . . . . . 2 — — — — — — — — 2 —

Ginnie Mae . . . . . . . 1 — — — — — (1) (3) 3 — —

Alt-A private-label

securities . . . . . . 104 256 — — — — (115) (435) 808 618 223

Subprime privatelabel securities. . 1,319 328 — — (50) — (149) — — 1,448 322

Mortgage revenue

bonds. . . . . . . . . 675 (101) — — — — (9) — — 565 (101)

Other. . . . . . . . . . . 117 (5) — — — — (13) — — 99 (5)

Total trading securities . $ 2,286 $ 469 (6)(7) $ — $ — $ (50) $ — $ (304) $ (438) $ 811 $ 2,774 $ 430

Available-for-sale

securities:

Mortgage-related:

Fannie Mae . . . . . . . $ 29 $ — $ (1) $ — $ — $ — $ (7) $ (14) $ — $ 7 $ —

Freddie Mac . . . . . . 10 — (1) — — — (2) (1) 2 8 —

Ginnie Mae . . . . . . . — — — — — — — (1) 1 — —

Alt-A private-label

securities . . . . . . 6,564 144 464 — (2,664) — (1,040) (3,357) 3,680 3,791 —

Subprime privatelabel securities. . 7,447 120 1,527 359 (1,317) — (1,068) — — 7,068 —

Mortgage revenue

bonds. . . . . . . . . 7,837 25 (449) — (35) — (2,125) — — 5,253 —

Other. . . . . . . . . . . 3,147 13 125 — — — (400) — — 2,885 —

Total available-for-sale

securities . . . . . . . . . $ 25,034 $ 302

(7)(8)

$ 1,665 $ 359 $ (4,016) $ — $ (4,642) $ (3,373) $ 3,683 $ 19,012 $ —

Mortgage loans . . . . . . . $ 2,634 $ 282 (6)(7) $ — $ 346 $ (393) $ — $ (459) $ (352) $ 646 $ 2,704 $ 50

Net derivatives. . . . . . . . 14 (165)

(6) — — — — 97 16 (2) (40) (51)

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae:

Senior floating . . . . $ (400) $ 76 $ — $ — $ — $ (674) $ 43 $ — $ — $ (955) $ 76

Of consolidated trusts. (1,128) (250) — — — (21) 537 434 (90) (518) (80)

Total long-term debt . . . $ (1,528) $ (174)

(6) $ — $ — $ — $ (695) $ 580 $ 434 $ (90) $ (1,473) $ (4)

__________

(1) Gains (losses) included in other comprehensive income are included in “Changes in unrealized gains on AFS securities, net of 

reclassification adjustments and taxes” in the 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 credit risk sharing 

securities issued under our CAS series. Prices for these securities were obtained from multiple third-party vendors or dealers. Transfers 

out of Level 3 also occurred for mortgage loans for which unobservable inputs used in valuations became less significant. Transfers into 

Level 3 consisted primarily of private-label mortgage-related securities backed by Alt-A loans. Prices for these securities are based on 

inputs from a single source or inputs that were not readily observable.

(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 gains (losses), net” in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-74

(7) Gains (losses) are included in “Net interest income” in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

(8) Gains (losses) are included in “Investment gains, net” in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income. 

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 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 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-75

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 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-76

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)
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-77

Fair Value Measurements as of December 31, 2014

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:

Agency(3)(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 153 Single Vendor Prepayment Speed (%) 100.0 100.0

Spreads (bps) 256.5 - 350.8 293.4

130 Consensus Prepayment Speed (%) 100.0 100.0

Spreads (bps) 184.6 - 219.5 197.5

22 Other

Total Agency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305

Alt-A private-label securities(2). . . . . . . . 290 Single Vendor Default Rate (%) 8.3 - 9.1 8.5

Prepayment Speed (%) 2.9 - 3.2 3.1

Severity (%) 79.5 - 95.0 90.4

Spreads (bps) 267.2 - 308.2 279.4

66 Consensus Default Rate (%) 5.4 5.4

Prepayment Speed (%) 7.0 7.0

Severity (%) 48.8 48.8

Spreads (bps) 264.8 264.8

151 Consensus

90 Other

Total Alt-A private-label securities. . . . 597

Subprime private-label securities(2). . . . . 422 Consensus Default Rate (%) 3.5 - 11.8 7.2

Prepayment Speed (%) 1.4 - 5.2 2.8

Severity (%) 72.1 - 95.0 85.9

Spreads (bps) 265.0 265.0

549 Consensus

290 Discounted Cash Flow Default Rate (%) 4.3 - 6.2 5.2

Prepayment Speed (%) 2.3 - 4.2 3.3

Severity (%) 62.2 - 95.0 73.8

Spreads (bps) 265.0 - 382.1 283.7

46 Other

Total subprime private-label securities. 1,307

Mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . 161 Dealer Mark Spreads (bps) 288.1 288.1

540 Discounted Cash Flow Spreads (bps) 6.0 - 318.0 263.0

21 Other

Total mortgage revenue bonds . . . . . . . 722

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99 Dealer Mark

Total trading securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 3,030
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-78

Fair Value Measurements as of December 31, 2014

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). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 6 Other

Alt-A private-label securities(2). . . . . . . . 322 Single Vendor Default Rate (%) 0.2 - 13.1 4.6

Prepayment Speed (%) 0.2 - 20.5 8.2

Severity (%) 27.8 - 89.7 61.0

Spreads (bps) 190.0 - 315.0 264.9

493 Single Vendor

1,187 Consensus Default Rate (%) 0.4 - 31.2 5.1

Prepayment Speed (%) 0.1 - 48.9 11.0

Severity (%) 0.2 - 95.0 59.6

Spreads (bps) 183.8 - 240.0 236.7

691 Consensus

403 Discounted Cash Default Rate (%) 5.0 - 11.5 7.0

Prepayment Speed (%) 0.5 - 8.4 3.4

Severity (%) 35.1 - 92.4 54.2

Spreads (bps) 188.0 - 340.0 243.4

44 Other

Total Alt-A private-label securities . . . 3,140

Subprime private-label securities(2). . . . 383 Single Vendor Default Rate (%) 2.1 - 8.3 5.5

Prepayment Speed (%) 1.5 - 3.3 2.1

Severity (%) 65.4 - 95.0 78.5

Spreads (bps) 215.0 - 262.0 230.0

2,722 Consensus Default Rate (%) 1.5 - 37.4 6.3

Prepayment Speed (%) 0.1 - 17.7 2.6

Severity (%) 1.5 - 95.0 84.4

Spreads (bps) 155.0 - 265.0 220.0

1,755 Consensus

317 Discounted Cash Default Rate (%) 3.0 - 12.3 7.0

Prepayment Speed (%) 1.1 - 9.0 4.1

Severity (%) 28.9 - 91.8 81.2

Spreads (bps) 155.0 - 895.0 250.5

63 Other

Total subprime private-label securities 5,240

Mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,504 Single Vendor Spreads (bps) (11.5) - 361.5 52.7

418 Single Vendor

510 Dealer Mark Spreads (bps) 222.8 - 322.1 265.9

1,581 Discounted Cash Spreads (bps) (11.5) - 620.2 251.4

10 Other

Total mortgage revenue bonds. . . . . . . 4,023

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 337 Single Vendor Default Rate (%) 1.7 - 5.0 4.4

Prepayment Speed (%) 3.0 - 9.3 3.8

Severity (%) 4.0 - 94.6 69.6

Spreads (bps) 263.1 - 427.2 291.5

720 Consensus Default Rate (%) 0.1 - 6.6 3.9

Prepayment Speed (%) 3.0 - 30.4 4.8

Severity (%) 0.4 - 95.0 62.4

Spreads (bps) 215.0 - 481.4 320.6

1,215 Dealer Mark

399 Other

Total other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,671

Total available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . $15,080
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-79

Fair Value Measurements as of December 31, 2014

Fair

Value

Significant Valuation

Techniques

Significant 

Unobservable Inputs(1) Range(1)

Weighted - 

Average(1)

(Dollars in millions)

Mortgage loans:

Single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 934 Build-Up Default Rate (%) 0.0 - 99.0 14.9

Prepayment Speed (%) 3.6 - 99.8 16.3

Severity (%) 3.4 - 100.0 23.7

279 Consensus

402 Discounted Cash Flow Default Rate (%) 2.7 - 13.1 5.5

Prepayment Speed (%) 0.1 - 13.5 7.5

Severity (%) 35.5 - 95.0 61.3

Spreads (bps) 155.0 - 665.0 227.4

39 Other

Total single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,654

Multifamily. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179 Build-Up Spreads (bps) 59.0 - 323.4 137.3

Total mortgage loans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 1,833

Net derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (107) Internal Model

150 Dealer Mark

2 Other

Total net derivatives. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 45

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae:

Senior floating . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (363) Discounted Cash Flow

Of consolidated trusts(4). . . . . . . . . . . . . . (219) Consensus

(205) Discounted Cash Flow Default Rate (%) 2.7 - 11.9 4.0

Prepayment Speed (%) 0.1 - 100.0 33.4

Severity (%) 35.5 - 95.0 54.6

Spreads (bps) 88.0 - 665.0 249.4

(103) Other

Total of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . . (527)

Total long-term debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (890)

_________

(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, Freddie Mac and Ginnie Mae 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 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 that 

were measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis as of December 31, 2015 or December 31, 2014. We held $17 million

and $93 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 December 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, respectively.

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.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-80

Fair Value Measurements

as of December 31,

Valuation Techniques 2015 2014

(Dollars in millions)

Nonrecurring fair value measurements:

Mortgage loans held for sale, at lower of cost or fair value . . . . . . . . . Consensus $ 3,651 $ 110

Single Vendor 336 —

Other 4 —

Total mortgage loans held for sale, at lower of cost or fair value. . . . 3,991 110

Single-family mortgage loans held for investment, at amortized cost . Internal Model 6,379 16,654

Other — 60

Total single-family mortgage loans held for investment, at

amortized cost . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6,379 16,714

Multifamily mortgage loans held for investment, at amortized cost. . . Broker Price Opinions 82 45

Asset Manager Estimate 236 580

Other 5 —

Total multifamily mortgage loans held for investment, at amortized

cost. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323 625

Acquired property, net:

Single-family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Accepted Offers 541 864

Appraisals 1,117 1,509

Walk Forwards 433 1,173

Internal Model 986 1,045

Other 134 191

Total single-family . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,211 4,782

Multifamily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Broker Price Opinions — 127

Other — 13

Total multifamily. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 140

Other assets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Other 30 45

Total nonrecurring assets at fair value. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 13,934 $ 22,416

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 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 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-81

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 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 consolidated balance sheets. We measure these loans on a recurring basis using the build-up, 

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 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 loans and TDRs on accrual status represents an estimate of the 

prices we would receive if we were to sell these loans in the whole-loan market. These nonperforming loans and TDRs on 

accrual status are either two or more months delinquent, in an open modification period, or in a closed modification state 

(both performing and nonperforming in accordance with the loan’s modified terms). 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 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-82

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.

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 a portion of our senior-subordinated trust structures using the single vendor 

valuation technique at the security level as a proxy for estimating loan fair value. We also 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. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-83

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. 

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 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 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 December 31, 2015, these 

methodologies comprised approximately 77% of our valuations, while accepted offers comprised approximately 18% of our 

valuations. Based on the number of properties measured as of December 31, 2014, these methodologies comprised 

approximately 77% of our valuations, while accepted offers comprised approximately 19% 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.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-84

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. 

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 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 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 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. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-85

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 

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 Verification 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, including review of material assumptions 

used when market-based inputs do not exist. 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 Finance Committee 

assumed the responsibilities of the Valuation Oversight Committee (“VOC”) during the fourth quarter of 2015. The Pricing 

and Verification 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 Office 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 Verification Group performs various review and validation procedures 

prior to utilizing these prices in our fair value estimation process. We verify selected 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.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-86

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 CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-87

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 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 December 31, 2015

Carrying

Value

Quoted

Price 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
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-88

December 31, 2014

Carrying

Value

Quoted

Price 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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 54,565 $ 37,965 $ 16,600 $ — $ — $ 54,565

Federal funds sold and securities purchased

under agreements to resell or similar

arrangements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,950 — 30,950 — — 30,950

Trading securities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31,504 19,466 9,008 3,030 — 31,504

Available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . 30,654 — 15,574 15,080 — 30,654

Mortgage loans held for sale. . . . . . . . . . . . . 331 — 169 169 — 338

Mortgage loans held for investment, net of

allowance for loan losses:

Of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 239,243 — 29,896 217,064 — 246,960

Of consolidated trusts. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,779,920 — 2,657,863 183,263 — 2,841,126

Mortgage loans held for investment. . . . . . . 3,019,163 — 2,687,759 400,327 — 3,088,086

Advances to lenders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,559 — 5,079 470 — 5,549

Derivative assets at fair value . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,485 — 6,489 182 (5,186) 1,485

Guaranty assets and buy-ups . . . . . . . . . . . . 210 — — 616 — 616

Total financial assets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,174,421 $ 57,431 $2,771,628 $ 419,874 $ (5,186) $3,243,747

Financial liabilities:

Federal funds purchased and securities sold

under agreements to repurchase . . . . . . . . $ 50 $ — $ 50 $ — $ — $ 50

Short-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105,012 — 105,022 — — 105,022

Of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,560 — — 1,560 — 1,560

Long-term debt:

Of Fannie Mae . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355,431 — 367,703 982 — 368,685

Of consolidated trusts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,760,152 — 2,815,843 19,334 — 2,835,177

Derivative liabilities at fair value . . . . . . . . . 614 — 10,671 137 (10,194) 614

Guaranty obligations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 — — 1,579 — 1,579

Total financial liabilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $3,223,201 $ — $3,299,289 $ 23,592 $ (10,194) $3,312,687

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. Were we 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 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 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-89

described under “Fair Value Measurement—Mortgage Loans Held for Investment.” These loans are classified 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. If these benefits were not reflected in the pricing for these loans (that is, if the loans were valued using our 

standard build-up approach), the fair value disclosed in the table above would be lower by $1.1 billion as of December 31, 

2015 and $3.3 billion as of December 31, 2014. The total fair value of our mortgage loans that have been refinanced under 

HARP as presented in the table above was $282.0 billion and $314.0 billion as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. 

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 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 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 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. 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-90

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 

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 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 December 31,

2015 2014

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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 14,075 $ 11,133 $ 23,609 $ 15,629 $ 6,403 $ 19,483

Unpaid principal balance . . . 13,661 11,263 21,604 15,001 6,512 17,810

__________

(1) Includes nonaccrual loans with a fair value of $238 million and $240 million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The 

difference between unpaid principal balance and the fair value of these nonaccrual loans as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 is $59 

million and $75 million, respectively. Includes loans that are 90 days or more past due with a fair value of $256 million and $271 

million as of December 31, 2015 and 2014, respectively. The difference between unpaid principal balance and the fair value of these 90

or more days past due loans as of December 31, 2015 and 2014 is $52 million and $78 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 gains 

(losses), net” in our consolidated statements of operations and comprehensive income.

For the Year Ended December 31,

2015 2014 2013

Loans

LongTerm Debt

Total 

Gains 

(Losses) Loans

LongTerm Debt

Total

Gains

(Losses) Loans

LongTerm Debt

Total

Gains

(Losses)

(Dollars in millions)

Changes in instrument-specific

credit risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 86 $ 39 $ 125 $ 60 $ 216 $ 276 $ (142) $ (31) $ (173)

Other changes in fair value . . . . (191) 146 (45) 670 (505) 165 (730) 346 (384)

Fair value gains (losses), net. $ (105) $ 185 $ 80 $ 730 $ (289) $ 441 $ (872) $ 315 $ (557)

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.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-91

18. 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 

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 
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-92

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 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.

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.

Unconditional Purchase and Lease Commitments 

We have unconditional commitments related to the purchase of loans and mortgage-related securities. These include both onand off-balance sheet commitments. A portion of these have been recorded as derivatives in our consolidated balance sheets. 

We lease certain premises and equipment under agreements that expire at various dates through 2033. Some of these leases 

provide for payment by the lessee of property taxes, insurance premiums, cost of maintenance and other costs. Rental 

expenses for operating leases were $47 million, $43 million and $41 million for the years ended December 31, 2015, 2014 

and 2013, respectively. 

The following table summarizes by remaining maturity, non-cancelable future commitments related to loan and mortgage 

purchases, operating leases and other agreements.

As of December 31, 2015

Loans and 

Mortgage-Related 

Securities(1)

Operating 

Leases(2) Other(3)

(Dollars in millions)

2016 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 58,715 $ 44 $ 59

2017 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 46 15

2018 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 32 11

2019 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 49 5

2020 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 53 4

Thereafter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — 718 —

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 58,715 $ 942 $ 94

__________

(1) Primarily includes $58.5 billion that has been accounted for as mortgage commitment derivatives.

(2) Includes amounts related to office buildings and equipment leases.

(3) Includes purchase commitments for certain telecommunications services, computer software and services, and other agreements and 

commitments.
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-93

19. Selected Quarterly Financial Information (Unaudited)

The consolidated statements of operations for the quarterly periods in 2015 and 2014 are unaudited and in the opinion of 

management include all adjustments, consisting of normal recurring adjustments, necessary for a fair presentation of our 

consolidated statements of operations. Certain prior period amounts have been reclassified to conform to the current period 

presentation. The operating results for the interim periods are not necessarily indicative of the operating results to be expected 

for a full year or for other interim periods.

For the 2015 Quarter Ended

March 31 June 30 September 30 December 31

(Dollars and shares in millions, except per share amounts)

Interest income:

Trading securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 115 $ 116 $ 99 $ 114

Available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376 294 261 225

Mortgage loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,044 26,682 26,980 26,993

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 34 37 39

Total interest income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27,568 27,126 27,377 27,371

Interest expense:

Short-term debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 33 37 47

Long-term debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,472 21,416 21,752 22,247

Total interest expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22,501 21,449 21,789 22,294

Net interest income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,067 5,677 5,588 5,077

Benefit (provision) for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 533 (1,033) 1,550 (255)

Net interest income after benefit (provision) for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,600 4,644 7,138 4,822

Investment gains, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 342 514 299 181

Fair value gains (losses), net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,919) 2,606 (2,589) 135

Fee and other income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308 556 259 225

Non-interest income (loss). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,269) 3,676 (2,031) 541

Administrative expenses:

Salaries and employee benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 351 331 317 320

Professional services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271 251 219 243

Occupancy expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 43 43 53

Other administrative expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 64 373 70

Total administrative expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 723 689 952 686

Foreclosed property expense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 473 182 497 477

TCCA fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382 397 413 429

Other expenses (income), net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (5) 202 215 201

Total expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,573 1,470 2,077 1,793

Income before federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2,758 6,850 3,030 3,570

Provision for federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (870) (2,210) (1,070) (1,103)

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,888 4,640 1,960 2,467

 Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — — — (1)

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,888 4,640 1,960 2,466

Dividends distributed or available for distribution to senior preferred stockholder. . . . (1,796) (4,359) (2,202) (2,859)

Net income (loss) attributable to common stockholders (Note 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 92 $ 281 $ (242) $ (393)

Earnings (loss) per share:

Basic and Diluted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 0.02 $ 0.05 $ (0.04) $ (0.07)

Weighted-average common shares outstanding:

Basic. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,762 5,762 5,762 5,762

Diluted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,893 5,893 5,762 5,762
FANNIE MAE

(In conservatorship)

NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS - (Continued)

F-94

For the 2014 Quarter Ended

March 31 June 30 September 30 December 31

(Dollars and shares in millions, except per share amounts)

Interest income:

Trading securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ 127 $ 143 $ 151 $ 132

Available-for-sale securities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440 414 395 373

Mortgage loans. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28,588 28,165 27,779 27,588

Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 24 29 33

Total interest income. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29,179 28,746 28,354 28,126

Interest expense:

Short-term debt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 21 26 27

Long-term debt. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,421 23,821 23,144 22,957

Total interest expense . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24,441 23,842 23,170 22,984

Net interest income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,738 4,904 5,184 5,142

Benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 774 1,639 1,085 466

Net interest income after benefit for credit losses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,512 6,543 6,269 5,608

Investment gains, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95 483 171 187

Fair value losses, net. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (1,190) (934) (207) (2,502)

Fee and other income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4,355 383 826 323

Non-interest income (loss). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3,260 (68) 790 (1,992)

Administrative expenses:

Salaries and employee benefits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325 319 337 340

Professional services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 242 275 263 296

Occupancy expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 47 47 59

Other administrative expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55 56 59 7

Total administrative expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 672 697 706 702

Foreclosed property expense (income). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (262) (214) 249 369

TCCA fees. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 322 335 351 367

Other expenses, net . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 238 61 48

Total expenses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 863 1,056 1,367 1,486

Income before federal income taxes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7,909 5,419 5,692 2,130

Provision for federal income taxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (2,584) (1,752) (1,787) (818)

Net income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,325 3,667 3,905 1,312

 Less: Net income attributable to noncontrolling interest. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . — (1) — —

Net income attributable to Fannie Mae. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,325 3,666 3,905 1,312

Dividends distributed or available for distribution to senior preferred stockholder. . . . (5,692) (3,712) (3,999) (1,920)

Net loss attributable to common stockholders (Note 11) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (367) $ (46) $ (94) $ (608)

Loss per share:

Basic and Diluted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . $ (0.06) $ (0.01) $ (0.02) $ (0.11)

Weighted-average common shares outstanding:

Basic and Diluted. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5,762 5,762 5,762 5,762
FR025