What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
Fannie Mae (FNMA) and Freddie Mac (FMCC) are separate government-sponsored enterprises, but their common shareholders face the same central issue: both companies remain in federal conservatorship, and Treasury holds senior preferred stock and warrants representing 79.9% of each enterprise’s common stock on a diluted basis. That does not make the shares equivalent or establish that either is a better buy. A useful comparison starts with the exact security—common or a particular preferred series—then examines its terms, the company’s financial position and the uncertain policy path ahead.
At a glance
| Name | Best for | Key spec | Checked |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fannie Mae (FNMA) | Investors assessing Fannie Mae’s specific equity claims and company results | Treasury warrants represent 79.9% of common stock on a diluted basis | November 2026 |
| Freddie Mac (FMCC) | Investors assessing Freddie Mac’s specific equity claims and company results | Treasury warrants represent 79.9% of common stock on a diluted basis | November 2026 |
The table is a starting point, not a valuation ranking. Both enterprises have related missions and similar government arrangements, yet each issues its own securities, reports its own results and can disclose different terms or risks. A comparison should therefore identify the security first and then use matched dates and definitions for financial data.
What is the main difference between FNMA and FMCC stock?
FNMA and FMCC are shares in different issuers, with separate financial statements and company-specific results. Both enterprises perform related roles in the U.S. mortgage market, but that similarity does not make one company’s results, capital position or security terms a substitute for the other’s. Each company has its own guarantee business, mortgage portfolio, credit performance, earnings and regulatory disclosures. A change in one issuer’s results should not automatically be treated as a change in the other’s.
Windows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallCrashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minute
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
The more consequential similarity for equity investors is their shared conservatorship structure. The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) is conservator of both enterprises. Under agreements with the U.S. Treasury, each has senior preferred stock held by Treasury and warrants for common stock that represent 79.9% of that enterprise’s common stock on a diluted basis, according to the FHFA’s overview of the Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements.
Conservatorship means FHFA exercises the relevant authority over the enterprises. It is not the same as an ordinary period of private-company management, and it is not a declaration that either company’s common stock has been canceled. The status does mean that government agreements and policy decisions are central inputs to any equity analysis. Investors should read the latest company filings and FHFA or Treasury announcements rather than infer a change from a market rumor.
Popular on Amazon
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
That warrant figure is a potential ownership and dilution issue, not evidence that Treasury has already exercised the warrants. Fannie Mae warns in its 2025 Form 10-K that exercise would substantially dilute existing common stockholders. Freddie Mac’s filing discusses the possibility of Treasury ownership and continuing government control. The precise impact on any investor depends on the security and the scenario; the headline percentage is not, by itself, a forecast of share price or investment return.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →How do Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s businesses compare?
The enterprises occupy related positions in housing finance, which is why investors often compare them. Their activities include guaranteeing or supporting mortgage-market exposures and maintaining mortgage portfolios, but they remain separate legal issuers. The relevant question is not whether their missions sound alike; it is whether their reported credit results, guarantee volumes, portfolio composition, capital and earnings are comparable on the same dates.
Use each issuer’s annual and quarterly disclosures to check definitions. “Guarantee business,” “mortgage portfolio,” credit performance and capital measures can be presented with company-specific terminology or period-end assumptions. A headline number from Fannie Mae’s filing should not be lined up against a Freddie Mac number from a different period or calculated under a different definition. If a metric cannot be reconciled, label the limitation instead of forcing a numerical conclusion.
Related businesses can still have different exposure to borrower performance, interest-rate conditions, prepayment behavior and portfolio decisions. The materials available for this comparison do not provide a matched current dataset that would support a claim that one enterprise has superior earnings or credit quality. That is why a “better buy” conclusion requires fresh filings and contemporaneous prices in addition to the structural facts discussed here.
Which security are you comparing: common, preferred or mortgage-backed securities?
First identify the instrument. Common stock, a specific series of preferred stock and a mortgage-backed security are different claims or products, and a comparison that treats them as interchangeable can misstate both risk and potential return.
Recommended Free Tools
- Common stock: An equity interest in the company. The Congressional Budget Office notes that common stock typically carries voting rights and control. For FNMA or FMCC common shareholders, Treasury’s senior preferred position and warrants are central considerations. Common investors are junior to the senior preferred claim and must consider the potential effect of warrant exercise on the number of shares represented by their ownership.
- Preferred stock: A particular series with its own terms. Dividend provisions, priority, conversion features and other rights can differ by series. Do not assume that two preferred securities—even securities issued by the same enterprise—have matching terms, or that a preferred series behaves like common stock. Record the exact series name, ticker, liquidation preference, dividend language, conversion provisions and any special voting or consent rights described in its governing documents.
- Mortgage-backed securities (MBS): These are not shares in either company. They are associated with the enterprises’ mortgage-market activities, but an MBS is not an ownership claim equivalent to FNMA or FMCC common or preferred stock. The CBO’s discussion of potential changes involving Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac addresses the companies and possible policy changes, not an assurance that equity and MBS investors face the same claims.
Before comparing returns, check the security description and governing terms for the exact instrument. A ticker alone is not enough if you have not confirmed whether it represents common stock or a particular preferred series. The answer to “Which company’s stock?” can change substantially depending on the answer to “Which class and series?”
This distinction also changes the relevant question. A common holder is focused on residual value, voting rights and dilution. A preferred holder is focused on the series’ priority, dividend and conversion terms, including how those terms interact with Treasury’s senior preferred stock. An MBS investor is analyzing a security tied to mortgage cash flows rather than an equity claim. Combining these questions into one “FNMA versus FMCC” score can produce a misleading result.
Also popular on Amazon
How do Treasury’s preferred stock and warrants affect shareholders?
Treasury’s position matters because common and preferred investors do not stand in the same place relative to the enterprise’s claims. The Purchase Agreements require quarterly dividends to Treasury, provide Treasury with a liquidation preference and granted the warrants, according to FHFA. The agreements have been amended over time, so the current documents and each company’s disclosures should be checked rather than relying on an old summary.
A liquidation preference is a claim whose terms matter when assessing what value could be available to junior securities. It should not be treated as a simple subtraction from a market price: the relevant terms, company circumstances and policy decisions all matter. The preference is part of a broader contractual relationship that includes dividend provisions and Treasury support. Investors should ask what event would trigger payment, how the claim changes over time and how it ranks relative to the security being considered.
Likewise, the existence of Treasury’s senior preferred stock does not establish that a particular dividend is currently being paid. Freddie Mac’s 2025 filing says that under its Purchase Agreement, it will not be required to pay dividends on senior preferred stock until it has built sufficient capital to meet the Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework requirements and buffers. Investors should check each company’s latest filing rather than assume every provision is identical. A deferred or condition-dependent payment provision is materially different from an ordinary fixed dividend paid on a predictable schedule.
The warrants create a separate issue. FHFA says they represent 79.9% of each company’s common stock on a diluted basis. If exercised, they could materially change the ownership represented by existing common shares. Fannie Mae expressly warns of substantial dilution in its 2025 Form 10-K; Freddie Mac’s 2025 Form 10-K discusses potential Treasury ownership and the continued government-control context. These are risks investors need to account for, not proof that an exercise has occurred or will occur on a particular date.
Preferred holders also need to read the terms of their own series. The senior preferred position held by Treasury is not a generic label that makes every preferred security identical. Priority, dividend, conversion and other provisions depend on the instrument’s terms. Compare the relevant documents rather than drawing conclusions from the words “preferred stock” alone. The same issuer can have multiple series with different economic outcomes under a recapitalization or release scenario.
What do the reported capital and liquidation figures tell investors?
They provide context, but the figures available here are not a like-for-like comparison between Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Fannie Mae reported senior preferred stock with an aggregate liquidation preference of $227.0 billion at December 31, 2025, and $230.5 billion at March 31, 2026. Those figures are reported in the company’s 2025 Form 10-K and relate to Fannie Mae—not Freddie Mac.
Do not use the Fannie Mae amount as if it were Freddie Mac’s corresponding figure, or as a direct measure of which company’s common stock is more attractive. Freddie Mac’s corresponding amount and applicable terms must be checked in its own current disclosures. Even when two figures have similar labels, they may reflect different reporting dates, accumulated amounts or contractual provisions. A fair comparison would need corresponding current figures for both enterprises, an explanation of the applicable terms and analysis of other relevant financial and capital information.
Also popular on Amazon
Capital is relevant to any discussion of recapitalization or possible release from conservatorship. Investors examining either company should consider retained earnings, regulatory capital requirements and buffers, and how the company stands against those measures. Look for the amount of capital, the applicable requirement, the buffer above that requirement and the reporting date. A company can report positive earnings while still being short of a policy or regulatory capital objective. Conversely, progress toward a capital target does not itself announce a release.
These measures relate to the policy and capital conditions that would matter in a future scenario; they do not by themselves establish that a release is scheduled or assured. Avoid treating one quarter’s retained earnings as a complete recapitalization plan. Also avoid comparing a Fannie Mae capital ratio with a Freddie Mac dollar amount unless the definitions and dates are aligned.
Has the government changed the terms or released either company?
Treasury and FHFA announced amendments to the Purchase Agreements in January 2025, describing them as intended to help ensure an orderly eventual release from conservatorship and to reflect certain existing practices. The announcement did not mean that either enterprise had been released.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesThe Treasury announcement expressly said those amendments did not affect capital retention or dividends on Treasury’s senior preferred shares, and did not then amend the expiration date of Treasury’s warrants. The distinction matters: an announcement about an eventual policy aim is not itself a completed transaction, a capital-structure change or a promise of a timetable. Investors should identify the exact clause changed, the effective date and any conditions instead of summarizing the announcement as “the companies are being privatized.”
The CBO describes potential Treasury stake sales and release from government control as possible actions whose effects could matter to the federal budget. That is policy analysis, not evidence that a stake sale or release has taken place. A Treasury stake disposition could involve separate decisions about securities, pricing, capital and governance; it should not be assumed to be automatic or simultaneous with a conservatorship exit.
An investor considering a policy scenario should label it as a scenario and ask how it could affect capital needs, Treasury’s claims, warrant ownership and the specific security being held. Do not price a political statement as if it were a binding deal. Track official FHFA, Treasury and company filings for an executed amendment, transaction document or regulatory action.
How should investors compare FNMA and FMCC?
Use a security-by-security, scenario-based comparison rather than treating the two tickers as a simple pair. A practical checklist is:
Also popular on Amazon
- Identify the instrument. Confirm whether you are evaluating common stock, a named preferred series or an MBS. Record the issuer, ticker and series where applicable. Confirm that the security is actually the instrument your account or order screen describes.
- Read the security’s terms. For preferred stock, verify that series’ dividend, priority, conversion and other provisions. For common stock, distinguish ordinary ownership and voting features from the effects of Treasury’s senior preferred position and warrants. For an MBS, analyze it as a mortgage-market security rather than an equity claim.
- Check the latest Purchase Agreement and company filing. Review the Treasury claims and relevant enterprise-specific disclosures. The terms have been amended over time, and a statement in one company’s filing should not automatically be applied to the other. Note the filing date and whether a disclosure is historical, current or contingent.
- Map the claims by priority. Write down Treasury’s senior preferred position, the security you own and any other relevant claims described in the documents. Ask what must happen before value or dividends can reach that security. Do not reduce a complex priority structure to a single market-price adjustment.
- Quantify warrant exposure. Start with FHFA’s 79.9% diluted representation, then model the share count or ownership percentage under an explicit exercise assumption. Make clear that this is a scenario, not a statement that Treasury has exercised the warrants.
- Separate reported facts from possible outcomes. The 79.9% warrant representation is an FHFA-reported term; warrant exercise, conservatorship release and Treasury stake sales are not established outcomes in the cited materials. Use conditional language when describing each path.
- Compare company-specific fundamentals. Examine each enterprise’s guarantee business, mortgage portfolio, credit performance, earnings and capital position using comparable reporting dates and definitions. Related businesses can still produce different results. Record why a metric is comparable before drawing a conclusion.
- Set out policy scenarios. Consider continued conservatorship, recapitalization, eventual release or a Treasury stake disposition as distinct possibilities. State assumptions about capital and claims instead of assuming a preferred outcome. Explain which security benefits or bears the main consequence in each scenario.
- Use contemporaneous valuation inputs. Compare prices, share counts and financial measures from the same date, and account for potential warrant dilution and Treasury claims. The materials summarized here do not include current share prices or market capitalizations, so they cannot establish which security is cheaper or more attractive now.
- Document what would change your view. Identify the filing, amendment, capital milestone or transaction that would cause you to update the comparison. This prevents a stale thesis from being treated as a current fact.
This framework does not identify a winner; it shows what a credible comparison would require. Without current prices, comparable capital and earnings data, the exact security terms and an explicit policy scenario, a “better buy” verdict would overstate what the available evidence can support.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Common mistakes when comparing FNMA and FMCC
- Calling the warrants current ownership. The 79.9% figure describes the common stock represented by Treasury’s warrants on a diluted basis. It does not say the warrants have been exercised.
- Mixing common and preferred tickers. A preferred series can have different dividend, conversion and priority terms from common stock and from another preferred series.
- Using one company’s liquidation preference for the other. Fannie Mae’s $227.0 billion and $230.5 billion figures are not Freddie Mac figures and cannot serve as a substitute for Freddie Mac’s disclosures.
- Treating an announcement as a transaction. The January 2025 amendment announcement described an orderly eventual release objective but did not announce a completed release, capital change or warrant exercise.
- Comparing mismatched dates. A 2025 annual result, a 2026 quarterly capital figure and a live market price do not form a clean valuation comparison without adjustments and clear labels.
- Assuming similar missions mean identical risk. Separate issuers can report different guarantee, portfolio, credit and earnings outcomes even when their broad roles overlap.
- Ignoring the security description. An MBS is not an equity share, and a ticker abbreviation alone may not communicate the full rights of a preferred series.
Is FNMA or FMCC the better buy?
There is no supported winner from the structural facts alone. A defensible answer would require the exact security, its current price, comparable share counts, company-specific earnings and capital data, and an explicit view of how conservatorship, Treasury’s senior preferred claim and the warrants will be handled. It would also need to explain whether the analysis concerns common stock, a named preferred series or an MBS.
Investors asking “Which is cheaper?” should first define the denominator. A low quoted price does not establish a low valuation when potential dilution, senior claims and uncertain policy outcomes are material. Similarly, a preferred security’s stated dividend or liquidation amount cannot be compared meaningfully without reading the series terms and determining whether payments are required, deferred or conditional.
The most useful answer is therefore a process: assemble current filings for both issuers, reconcile the dates and definitions, map the claims, model at least a continued-conservatorship case and a release or recapitalization case, and then compare the resulting risks with the current market price. If a key input is unavailable, say so rather than filling the gap with an assumption presented as fact.
How we picked
This comparison focuses on the two named issuers and the factors that materially distinguish their securities for investors: conservatorship, Treasury’s senior preferred position and warrants, security class, capital and company-specific results, and possible policy changes. It does not rank one company as a superior investment because the evidence summarized here lacks contemporaneous prices and matched valuation inputs.
The emphasis on terms and scenarios is deliberate. FNMA and FMCC are often discussed together, but a common share, a particular preferred series and an MBS can respond differently to the same policy event. Keeping those instruments separate produces a more useful checklist and reduces the risk of treating an uncertain outcome as an established fact.
What is the practical takeaway for investors?
FNMA and FMCC are separate companies, but common shareholders in both face a shared structure that can dominate ordinary ticker-to-ticker comparisons: FHFA conservatorship, Treasury’s senior preferred claim and warrants representing 79.9% of common stock on a diluted basis. The risk and potential outcome still depend on the exact security, its terms, the company’s financial position and future government action. Treat any release, warrant exercise or Treasury sale as uncertain unless and until official documents establish a change.
Also popular on Amazon
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
For a disciplined comparison, identify the class and series, read the current issuer and Treasury documents, use matched capital and earnings data, and show how dilution and senior claims affect each scenario. That approach will not remove policy uncertainty, but it makes clear which assumptions drive the investment conclusion.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does the 79.9% warrant figure mean Treasury already owns that much common stock?
No. FHFA describes warrants representing 79.9% of each enterprise’s common stock on a diluted basis; that is not the same as saying the warrants have been exercised. The companies’ filings discuss the consequences of potential Treasury ownership and dilution.
What would happen to existing common shares if Treasury exercised the warrants?
Exercise could substantially dilute the ownership percentage represented by existing common shares because the warrants cover 79.9% of common stock on a diluted basis. The exact effect depends on the transaction terms, share count and other capital actions; exercise is not established as having occurred.
Can the Fannie Mae liquidation-preference amount be used to estimate Freddie Mac’s?
No. The $227.0 billion and $230.5 billion figures are Fannie Mae figures reported for specific dates, not a Freddie Mac comparison. Freddie Mac’s corresponding figures and terms must be checked in its own current disclosures.
Are Treasury’s quarterly dividends guaranteed to be paid every quarter?
The Purchase Agreements address quarterly dividends, but Freddie Mac’s 2025 filing says dividends on senior preferred stock are not required until it has built sufficient capital to meet the Enterprise Regulatory Capital Framework requirements and buffers. Check the latest filing for each issuer and the applicable terms.
Would a Treasury stake sale automatically end conservatorship?
The cited material treats a Treasury stake sale and release from government control as possible policy actions, not a completed or automatic sequence. The CBO discusses potential budget effects, while the 2025 amendment announcement described an aim of orderly eventual release without announcing that a release had occurred.
The Bottom Line
Bottom line: FNMA and FMCC are separate issuers, but both remain in conservatorship with Treasury senior preferred claims and warrants representing 79.9% of common stock on a diluted basis. Identify the exact security, verify its terms, compare matched company data and model policy scenarios before deciding whether either security fits your risk tolerance.
