Freddie Mac (formally the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, or FHLMC) is a titan of the American housing market and a cornerstone of its financial architecture. It is a Government-Sponsored Enterprise (GSE) created by the U.S. Congress in 1970. Its mission sounds simple: to promote a stable and affordable housing market. It achieves this by operating in the secondary mortgage market. In plain English, Freddie Mac doesn't lend money directly to homebuyers. Instead, it buys home loans from banks and other lenders, freeing up their cash so they can make more loans. It then bundles these thousands of mortgages into attractive investment packages called mortgage-backed securities (MBS) and sells them to investors around the globe. This entire process keeps money flowing through the housing system, helping to make mortgages more available and affordable for the average American. Freddie Mac has a famous older sibling, Fannie Mae, which performs a very similar function.
Imagine the journey of a home loan. Without Freddie Mac, it would be a very short trip.
This would make it very hard to get a loan. Freddie Mac changes the game entirely.
The result? A continuous, liquid, and massive market for home loans that keeps the American dream of homeownership within reach for many.
Here's where things get interesting and, for investors, a bit tricky. Being a “Government-Sponsored Enterprise” put Freddie Mac in a strange hybrid position. On one hand, it was a private company with shares traded on the stock market. Its management had a duty to maximize profits for its shareholders. On the other hand, it had a public mission chartered by Congress and was widely perceived to have an implicit guarantee from the U.S. government. Investors believed that if Freddie Mac ever faced collapse, Uncle Sam would not let it fail because it was too important to the economy (“too big to fail”). This belief allowed Freddie Mac to borrow money at incredibly low interest rates, giving it a huge competitive advantage and fueling its growth. However, this setup also created a massive moral hazard: the company could take on huge risks, knowing that if things went well, shareholders would profit, and if things went catastrophically wrong, taxpayers would likely foot the bill.
The implicit guarantee was put to the ultimate test during the 2008 Financial Crisis. In the run-up to the crisis, driven by profit motives and political pressure to expand homeownership, Freddie Mac (and Fannie Mae) began buying and guaranteeing billions of dollars in risky subprime mortgages. When the housing bubble popped and millions of homeowners defaulted, the value of these mortgages and the MBS built upon them collapsed. Freddie Mac suffered colossal losses, and the U.S. government was forced to make the implicit guarantee explicit. In September 2008, the government placed Freddie Mac into a conservatorship run by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), effectively a nationalization to prevent its bankruptcy from cratering the entire global financial system. Shareholders of its common stock were almost completely wiped out. For a value investing practitioner, the story of Freddie Mac is a classic cautionary tale:
Freddie Mac remains in government conservatorship. Its common stock (FMCC) and various classes of preferred stock still trade on the speculative Over-The-Counter (OTC) market. This is not investing; it's high-stakes speculation on government policy. A legal arrangement known as the “Net Worth Sweep” means that nearly all of Freddie Mac's profits are sent directly to the U.S. Treasury as a dividend for the bailout. This leaves virtually nothing for common or preferred shareholders. While there is ongoing debate and legal action aimed at recapitalizing the company and releasing it from conservatorship, the outcome is highly uncertain. For the ordinary investor, Freddie Mac represents a “too-hard pile.” It's a gamble on legal and political outcomes, not a rational investment based on predictable future earnings. It serves as a powerful reminder that what is crucial to the economy is not necessarily a good investment for your portfolio.