It’s always good fun to get upset about something of the form “X bet against Y,” and the financial markets offer a whole range of opportunities to do so. Everything is a bet against something, and if that something is sympathetic and/or you, you can go get enjoyably pissed at whoever is doing the betting. Today ProPublica reports on a nasty-sounding Freddie Mac bet against America and freedom and the 30-year fixed-rate mortgage with no prepayment penalty:

Freddie Mac, the taxpayer-owned mortgage giant, has placed multibillion-dollar bets that pay off if homeowners stay trapped in expensive mortgages with interest rates well above current rates.

Freddie began increasing these bets dramatically in late 2010, the same time that the company was making it harder for homeowners to get out of such high-interest mortgages.

Now, a “bet that pays off if homeowners stay trapped in expensive mortgages with interest rates well above current rates” is called a … what’s the word? … oh, right. A “mortgage.” A feature of our life here on earth is that banks make money when people stay in their fixed-rate mortgages when rates go down, and lose money when people refinance those mortgages.*

Okay but in fairness those aren’t Freddie’s “bets,” not exactly. Their bets against not only the housing market but also specifically a couple named the Silversteins, who “live in an unfinished development of cul-de-sacs and yellow stucco houses about 20 miles north of Philadelphia, in a house decorated with Bonnie’s orchids and their Rose Bowl parade pin collection,” look like this:

Here’s how Freddie Mac’s trades profit from the Silversteins staying in “financial jail.” The couple’s mortgage is sitting in a big pile of other mortgages, most of which are also guaranteed by Freddie and have high interest rates. Those mortgages underpin securities that get divided into two basic categories.

One portion is backed mainly by principal, pays a low return, and was sold to investors who wanted a safe place to park their money. The other part, the inverse floater, is backed mainly by the interest payments on the mortgages, such as the high rate that the Silversteins pay. So this portion of the security can pay a much higher return, and this is what Freddie retained.

In 2010 and ’11, Freddie purchased $3.4 billion worth of inverse floater portions — their value based mostly on interest payments on $19.5 billion in mortgage-backed securities, according to prospectuses for the deals. They covered tens of thousands of homeowners. Most of the mortgages backing these transactions have high rates of about 6.5 percent to 7 percent, according to the deal documents.

Between late 2010 and early 2011, Freddie Mac’s purchases of inverse floater securities rose dramatically. Freddie purchased inverse floater portions of 29 deals in 2010 and 2011, with 26 bought between October 2010 and April 2011. That compares with seven for all of 2009 and five in 2008.

In these transactions, Freddie has sold off most of the principal, but it hasn’t reduced its risk.

Okay, that is actually pretty interesting. But let’s leave the Silversteins out of it for a sec and talk about what these trades are. I think they look like this:
(1) Banks write 30-year fixed mortgages.
(2) Banks sell mortgages to Freddie.
(3) Freddie slices off the credit risk of these mortgages and puts it in Freddie’s special credit-risk-keeping place, which is called a “guarantee,” because no one else wants that credit risk.
(4) Freddie now has a pile of mortgagy-looking cash flows with no credit risk, but with interest rate and refinancing risk.**
(5) Freddie then slices off a good hefty chunk of the refinancing risk (and some interest rate risk***) and puts it in its special refi-(and-rates)-risk-keeping place, which is called “inverse floaters,” because [reason goes here].
(6) Freddie now has a pile of cash flows with no credit risk, much less refinancing risk, and less interest rate risk (and, like, what, are rates going to go lower)?
(7) Freddie now sells to investors a delightful pile of, um, at a first approximation fixed-rate fixed-maturity U.S. government bonds.
(8) People seem to like U.S. government bonds! So that goes swimmingly.

Seem fair? The important point is that you don’t need to get hung up on structural details like “inverse floaters” in step (5). All you need to know is that Freddie is taking a disproportionate amount of refinancing risk on the mortgages it guarantees and packages, which means that the buyers of those packaged mortgages are getting disproportionately less refinancing risk.

Now let’s fill in the reason in step (5). One possible reason might be “Freddie has the ability to change its rules to make it harder for the Silversteins to refinance, so it thinks it has the best ability to outperform market expectations on refinancing risk, so it hangs on to that risk itself because it believes it’s being overpaid for taking the risk.” This is the view that ProPublica takes and it’s pretty plausible because Freddie apparently did change its rules to make it harder to refinance, tightening its credit checks to exclude borrowers who have a recent short sale. That’s at least awkward given Freddie’s whole role as, whatever, government guarantor of homeownership. Here’s a related take:

When Freddie and Fannie’s huge investment portfolios profit, it helps reduce the potential burden on taxpayers. That’s been a priority for FHFA under Edward DeMarco’s leadership. At the same time, Fannie and Freddie could, by easing the way for homeowners to lower their payments, help heal the housing market. That’s the priority for the White House. As such, Freddie Mae made “a direct bet against the administration’s public policy effort,” Christopher Mayer, professor of housing finance at Columbia University, tells me.

When it comes to refinancing, “there’s always been this lingering question — why aren’t the GSEs doing more? Everyone says it’s because of their portfolio, ” said Mayer, who’s been a proponent of mass refinancing through Fannie and Freddie. He points out that Freddie, in recent months, had tighter rules for refinancing than its counterpart Freddie. “Now we know why,” Mayer says.

As for that public policy effort, if you didn’t know, there’s gonna be mass refinancing. Or not. I mean, probably not. But supposedly “The program will give every responsible homeowner the chance to save about $3,000 a year on their mortgage by refinancing at historically low interest rates. No more red tape. No more runaround from the banks.” So you could see Freddie’s red-tape-and-runaround, and its financial incentives to keep up said runaround, being somewhat awkies.

Now I could characterize step (5) a little differently if I wanted to. I could say that Freddie may have kept the refinancing risk because it was the hardest to sell. Why might it be hard to sell? Well, refinancing risk is often sort of quantifiable based on past experience, etc. – but it gets harder to quantify when politicians want to push refinancing, and when mortgage-market practices and policies are (maybe!) being changed to facilitate that. In that environment, especially where many of those maybe-changing policies are Freddie Mac’s policies, buying refinancing risk from Freddie becomes less appealing for a private investor. If I stump up a million bucks for fixed-rate Freddie mortgages at 6%, and the next day Freddie says “everyone gets a free refinancing!,” Freddie has cost me a lot of money.

Given that sort of moral-hazard-and-adverse-selection situation, you could see why it would be less attractive for an investor to take refinancing risk off of Freddie’s hands. And that might push down the price for buying that risk – making Freddie, as the actor with the most clarity into the housing market and coming regulatory changes, the only player who might think that it’s worth it.

That’s not exactly a different explanation from ProPublica’s. It’s just a question of whether you emphasize Freddie’s nefarious demand for that risk – “ooh, let’s manipulate the mortgage rules to make ourselves money on refinancing risk!” – or everyone else’s lack of demand for it – “let’s stay the hell away from refinancing risk because mass mortgage modification is maybe coming.” Either one could end up with Freddie holding relatively more I/O inverse floaters from its deals than it did in the past. But one sounds evil and the other sounds … well, less evil. But maybe stupid? Like, part of your job at Freddie is to manage risk, and building up all of the refinancing risk in the world in your book just because no one else wants it at the price you offer, while your political bosses are pushing mass refinancings, sounds kind of dumb. Unless you go do stupid-evil things like make refinancing harder.

One related point is that the refinancing risk has to go somewhere. You can give it to the banks which originate the loans, or to Freddie which packages the loans, or to investors who ultimately buy the loans. Leaving the refinancing risk in the mortgages diffuses it more, so there’s not just one entity – Freddie – with kajillions of dollars of refinancing risk. Same, by the way, for credit risk – making banks or investors responsible for defaulted loans spreads out the risk; making Freddie responsible for them concentrates it in one place. (Two places. Fannie Mae too.)

What is the effect of concentrating the risks? Well, on the one hand, you get Freddie, in its creepy dual role of profit-seeking mortgage investor and tool of government policy, doing creepy dual things like talking nicely about refinancing and modification while also seeking to avoid actual refinancings and principal writedowns that would cost it money. So that’s bad. On the other hand, that’s relatively – relatively – easy to put a stop to. As a tool of government policy mostly owned by the government, Freddie really is subject to direct government orders in the way that JPMorgan isn’t quite.

My bet, though, is that reducing the refinancing risk held by the private sector will make mass refinancing easier. Freddie and Fannie, God knows, do a lot of lobbying, and they apparently have big incentives to oppose refinancing. But those incentives exist because JPMorgan and Bank of America and Pimco and pension funds all have reduced incentives to oppose refinancing. Mass refinancing will cost the private sector $1 less for every $1 more it will cost Fannie/Freddie. And Fannie/Freddie at this point are unpopular government-owned punching bags that lose so much money that a few billion more will hardly be noticed. Whereas banks and investors are trying to stay profitable and are less politically toxic than Frannie.

In other words, if I ran the government and I wanted to create a mass mortgage refinancing program, I would worry about banks and investors revolting over the losses they’d take on refinancing, where by “revolting” I mean “mounting a lobbying and PR and financial campaign to stop it.” And the way I might prevent that revolt would be by subsidizing those private sector refinancing losses. And this might be the way I’d do it.

Freddie Mac Bets Against American Homeowners [ProPublica]

* You write a fixed-rate 30-year mortgage and it has a present value of zero, or some profit margin, whatever. Rates go down and now it has an above-market interest rate. What is its present value? Well, something like [(change in rates) x (duration of mortgage)]. If it’s easily and frictionlessly prepayable, the duration gets very short and its value is zero or zero-ish. If it’s a pain in the ass to prepay, the value is positive, and gets bigger the more rates drop and the harder it is to prepay. It’s a bet that pays off if homeowners stay trapped in fixed-rate mortgages with rates above market rates.

** Really “prepayment risk,” which is the more general/normal term, but let’s stick with “refinancing risk” here to emphasize what people are actually worried about politically and such.

*** Random update: It’s worth saying that the IO inverse floaters are also/mainly a rates play. I’m focusing on the prepayment risk because that’s what’s newsworthy, and certainly they soak up a lot of prepayment risk.

84 comments (hidden to protect delicate sensibilities)
Show all comments ↓

Comments (84)

  1. Posted by Bandersnatch | January 30, 2012 at 1:41 PM

    Can you prepare a simple chart showing, for your posts, # of words on the x axis and # of comments on the y? Thanks

  2. Posted by Bawwwney Fwank | January 30, 2012 at 1:44 PM

    Although those rose bowl pins aren't fetching that much on ebay, and you can't make your mortgage payment with them, they are as good as cash at Barney's World of Butt.

  3. Posted by Beaker | January 30, 2012 at 1:44 PM

    How many credits do I get, towards a masters degree, if I read this article?

  4. Posted by Mike_Mayo | January 30, 2012 at 1:50 PM

    And here I thought inverse floaters were what I deposited in the toilet bowl this morning.

  5. Posted by pazzo83 | January 30, 2012 at 1:54 PM

    From my work with Freddie as a historian, I believe you have erred in some of the chronology here, Matt. I've fixed it for you:

    (2) Banks sell mortgages to Freddie.
    (3-8) ???
    (9) Profit.

    – N Gingrich

  6. Posted by Ty Webb | January 30, 2012 at 2:02 PM

    A wholly owned subsidiary of the U.S. Gov betting against its citizens…. "Danny This isn't Russia. Is this Russia? This isn't Russia."

  7. Posted by Otunga | January 30, 2012 at 2:09 PM

    Check your pants.

  8. Posted by Fannie | January 30, 2012 at 2:20 PM

    In Soviet Russia, you're short Greg Lippman's house.

  9. Posted by Ping'sHiring | January 30, 2012 at 2:28 PM

    Thanks for turning DB into your hedge fund interview portfolio

  10. Posted by BigGayAl | January 30, 2012 at 2:29 PM

    Underwear gnomes

  11. Posted by Freddie | January 30, 2012 at 2:41 PM

    Our new motto "Servicing crap mortgages, one deadbeat at a time"

  12. Posted by FirstTimer | January 30, 2012 at 2:42 PM

    ….*sheepishly*….how'd Matt do that?

  13. Posted by early_hominid | January 30, 2012 at 3:03 PM

    Matt, one word for you: brevity . . . brevity and concision . . . My two words are brevity and concision . . . and ruthless efficiency . . . my three words are brevity, concision, ruthless efficiency . . . and an almost fanatical devotion to Bess . . . My four . . . no . . . Amongst my words . . . Amongst my concepts . . . are such elements as brevity, concision . . . I’ll come in again . . .

  14. Posted by agreatdaytothink | January 30, 2012 at 3:29 PM

    An I/O bond with really poor convexity isn’t really an Inverse Floater.

    – Guy who is pretty sure he knows what an Inverse Floater isn’t, and thinks the author wanted to use some fancy financial speak to improve his chances for the Pulitzer.

  15. Posted by Alan_Stanwyk | January 30, 2012 at 3:38 PM

    Last filthy dollar on the floor of a Mexican strip joint > the original article's 2,295 words > Matt's article's 1,972 words > UBS
    – A man who likes to find order among chaos

  16. Posted by PermaGuestII | January 30, 2012 at 4:26 PM

    No one expects the literary inquisition!

  17. Posted by Guest | January 30, 2012 at 4:28 PM

    this article has more words than my pitchbook

    – high-flying third year analyst

  18. Posted by Guest | January 30, 2012 at 4:30 PM


  19. Posted by Admiral GS | January 30, 2012 at 5:24 PM

    Would you be able to understand it, and the explanation?

  20. Posted by Elliot Rosewater | January 30, 2012 at 5:32 PM

    "He points out that Freddie, in recent months, had tighter rules for refinancing than its counterpart Freddie. “Now we know why,” Mayer says."

    Tighter than itself eh?

    -Confused Commenter

  21. Posted by A Plumber | January 30, 2012 at 5:59 PM

    Someone got problem with inverse floaters here?

  22. Posted by Eddie D | January 30, 2012 at 8:32 PM

    The market term is inverse IO (IIO), not IO inverse floaters. They are usually created by stripping coupon off of a mortgage (to create a bond that trades closer to par) and creating a stripped down bond, capped floater, and an IIO. In other words if you have a bond with a 5% coupon, you first split it into two bonds: one with a 4% coupon and one with 6% coupon. Note you can't create the same amount of 6% coupon mortgage, rather you can only create 1/5 the amount of the starting bond. This 4% coupon bond now trades at a lower dollar price, so you sell that to bank or what have you. Now you take the synthetic 6% bond and split that into a floater and IIO.

  23. Posted by Eddie D | January 30, 2012 at 8:36 PM

    should be 1/6 of the starting bond

  24. Posted by Bristol Airport Hotels | April 19, 2012 at 7:52 PM

    vvJh0h Muchos Gracias for your blog post.Thanks Again. Really Great.

  25. Posted by propane freezer | April 24, 2012 at 5:13 PM

    Thanks a lot for the article post.Thanks Again. Really Great.

  26. Posted by Knoxville Carpet Cleaners | April 25, 2012 at 12:00 PM

    Hey, thanks for the article.Thanks Again. Want more.

  27. Posted by translations | April 25, 2012 at 1:12 PM

    I truly appreciate this article post.Thanks Again. Really Great.

  28. Posted by villas to rent in cyprus | April 26, 2012 at 1:58 PM

    Really informative blog post. Really Cool.

  29. Posted by cheap backlinks | April 27, 2012 at 4:56 AM

    Major thanks for the blog post. Want more.

  30. Posted by Hotel Prices | April 27, 2012 at 7:15 AM

    I am so grateful for your article.Much thanks again.

  31. Posted by Sheds | April 27, 2012 at 6:36 PM

    Looking forward to reading more. Great article.Much thanks again. Want more.

  32. Posted by legal advice in australia | April 27, 2012 at 11:06 PM

    Thanks-a-mundo for the article post. Much obliged.

  33. Posted by kids magician | April 28, 2012 at 6:54 AM

    A big thank you for your blog post. Great.

  34. Posted by custom logo design | April 28, 2012 at 8:08 AM

    Really appreciate you sharing this blog post.Thanks Again.

  35. Posted by the boller | April 29, 2012 at 12:58 AM

    Great blog.Thanks Again. Really Cool.

  36. Posted by Felipe Freeney | April 29, 2012 at 6:41 AM

    I loved your blog article.Really looking forward to read more. Cool.

  37. Posted by books on history | April 29, 2012 at 9:07 PM

    Wow, great blog post.Really looking forward to read more. Great.

  38. Posted by Hospice Care | April 30, 2012 at 2:59 AM

    I loved your post.Really thank you!

  39. Posted by party | April 30, 2012 at 5:22 PM

    I value the article.

  40. Posted by buy hair accessories | April 30, 2012 at 11:20 PM

    wow, awesome blog article.Really thank you! Much obliged.

  41. Posted by thinning hair women | May 1, 2012 at 5:44 AM

    Wow, great article.Thanks Again. Keep writing.

  42. Posted by model agency | May 1, 2012 at 11:40 AM

    Looking forward to reading more. Great blog. Fantastic.

  43. Posted by Shock Collar | May 1, 2012 at 2:35 PM

    Im obliged for the article post.Really thank you! Want more.

  44. Posted by annonce | May 1, 2012 at 4:09 PM

    Thank you ever so for you blog. Really Great.

  45. Posted by house | May 1, 2012 at 11:40 PM

    Im grateful for the blog article.Much thanks again. Really Great.

  46. Posted by oem software | May 2, 2012 at 7:35 AM

    mBOXB1 This is one awesome article.Much thanks again.

  47. Posted by article submission service | May 2, 2012 at 6:25 PM

    I really liked your blog article.Really thank you! Much obliged.

  48. Posted by free makeup samples | May 3, 2012 at 12:43 AM

    wow, awesome blog post.Thanks Again. Great.

  49. Posted by cheap followers | May 3, 2012 at 7:30 AM

    I appreciate you sharing this article.Thanks Again. Will read on…

  50. Posted by Ocho Rios | May 4, 2012 at 8:45 PM

    Great article.Really looking forward to read more. Cool.

  51. Posted by winchester safes | May 5, 2012 at 12:24 AM

    Thanks for the article. Awesome.

  52. Posted by Sex | May 5, 2012 at 1:55 AM

    Very good article.Much thanks again. Cool.

  53. Posted by strap on | May 5, 2012 at 6:23 AM

    Awesome post. Want more.

  54. Posted by chris papa | May 5, 2012 at 11:27 AM


  55. Posted by Wasps nest | May 6, 2012 at 12:52 AM

    I just feel like you know so substantially and know how to make people listen to what you have to say. This blog is just too cool to become missed. Terrific stuff, really. Please, PLEASE keep it up!

  56. Posted by dr michael allen fat loss factor | May 6, 2012 at 6:26 AM

    you are really a good webmaster. The site loading speed is incredible. It seems that you’re doing any unique trick. In addition, The contents are masterpiece. you’ve done a magnificent job on this topic!

  57. Posted by Tulsa mortgage | May 6, 2012 at 6:40 AM

    Can I simply say what a aid to seek out someone who really knows what theyre speaking about on the internet. You definitely know find out how to carry a problem to gentle and make it important. Extra people must learn this and perceive this side of the story. I cant imagine youre no more well-liked since you definitely have the gift.

  58. Posted by Snapback Wholesale | May 6, 2012 at 12:04 PM

    This post is helpful to me,thank you friend.

  59. Posted by swinging | May 7, 2012 at 8:01 AM

    Looking forward to reading more. Great blog article.Much thanks again. Great.

  60. Posted by Velma Pelkowski | May 7, 2012 at 1:57 PM

    Thanks-a-mundo for the article. Fantastic.

  61. Posted by hair pins | May 7, 2012 at 8:48 PM

    Thanks-a-mundo for the article. Keep writing.

  62. Posted by Claris Tigerino | May 7, 2012 at 10:10 PM

    There is normally msn, yahoo, skype and the list goes on

  63. Posted by remy human hair | May 7, 2012 at 10:29 PM

    Awesome article.Really looking forward to read more. Cool.

  64. Posted by cash | May 7, 2012 at 10:45 PM

    Great article post.Thanks Again. Keep writing.

  65. Posted by giclee canvas printing | May 8, 2012 at 5:25 AM

    Major thankies for the blog. Awesome.

  66. Posted by Championship Trophies | May 8, 2012 at 2:25 PM

    Very neat article post.Thanks Again. Want more.

  67. Posted by Traffic | May 8, 2012 at 3:57 PM

    Awesome post.Really thank you!

  68. Posted by ocarina | May 8, 2012 at 6:13 PM

    Im grateful for the article.Much thanks again. Cool.

  69. Posted by Harley Parts | May 8, 2012 at 11:58 PM

    Enjoyed every bit of your article post.Really looking forward to read more. Will read on…

  70. Posted by bad credit loans | May 9, 2012 at 1:10 AM

    Say, you got a nice blog article.Thanks Again. Great.

  71. Posted by Groomsman Gifts | May 9, 2012 at 5:35 AM

    Very informative post.Really thank you! Fantastic.

  72. Posted by in | May 9, 2012 at 4:54 PM

    Appreciate you sharing, great blog.Thanks Again. Will read on…

  73. Posted by under tile heating elements | May 10, 2012 at 4:23 AM

    Thanks for the blog article. Fantastic.

  74. Posted by salehoo | May 10, 2012 at 7:35 AM

    Hey, thanks for the blog. Cool.

  75. Posted by instrumental beat | May 10, 2012 at 9:58 AM

    I value the article.Really thank you! Fantastic.

  76. Posted by vdxkubjdv | September 7, 2012 at 6:11 AM

    reD1jv wwbvnbhupyig, [url=]lbpjxosysxkn[/url], [link=]qneyrmcubqmj[/link],

  77. Posted by irilcpvo | September 9, 2012 at 8:57 PM


  78. Posted by guild wars 2 gold | September 16, 2012 at 11:44 AM

    Thank you for sharing excellent informations. Your web site is so cool. I’m impressed by the details that youˇve on this web site. It reveals how nicely you perceive this subject. Bookmarked this website page, will come back for extra articles. You, my pal, ROCK! I found simply the info I already searched everywhere and simply could not come across. What an ideal web site.

  79. Posted by get more info | September 23, 2012 at 1:45 AM
  80. Posted by aimp 3 | September 26, 2012 at 2:21 AM

    Hi. Would you be able to understand it, and the explanation?

  81. Posted by Get twitter followers | October 16, 2012 at 10:38 PM

    Terrific post but I was wondering if you could write a litte more on this subject? I’d be very thankful if you could elaborate a little bit more. Cheers!

  82. Posted by britaxmarathon9 | March 18, 2014 at 12:41 AM

    Great goods from you, man. I have understand your stuff previous to and you're just extremely fantastic. Thethriftymason MF Developer Trees for Children Health-Tower

  83. Posted by Übersetzung | May 23, 2014 at 10:32 AM

    Do you need a german translation?

  84. Posted by Übersetzungsbüro | May 23, 2014 at 10:34 AM

    Thats a good idea.