Print Page  |  Close Window

SEC Filings

10-Q
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION FANNIE MAE filed this Form 10-Q on 05/07/2015
Entire Document
 


percentage of recourse obligations from lender counterparties rated below investment grade was 23% as of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014. The percentage of remaining recourse obligations from lender counterparties that were not rated by rating agencies was 29% of as of March 31, 2015, compared with 28% as of December 31, 2014. Given the stressed financial condition of some of our single-family lenders, we expect in some cases we will recover less than the amount the lender is obligated to provide us under our risk sharing arrangement with them. Depending on the financial strength of the counterparty, we may require a lender to pledge collateral to secure its recourse obligations.
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 consists of lenders that range from large depositories to independent non-bank financial institutions. As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014 approximately 36% of the unpaid principal balance of loans in our multifamily guaranty book of business serviced by our DUS lenders was from institutions with an external investment grade credit rating or a guaranty from an affiliate with an external investment grade credit rating. Given the recourse nature of the DUS program, the lenders are bound by eligibility standards that dictate, among other items, minimum capital and liquidity levels, and the posting of collateral at a highly rated custodian to secure a portion of the lenders’ future obligations. We actively monitor the financial condition of these lenders to help ensure the level of risk remains within our standards and to ensure required capital levels are maintained and are in alignment with actual and modeled loss projections.
Custodial Depository Institutions
A total of $39.3 billion in deposits for single-family payments were received and held by 270 institutions during the month of March 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, 93% as of March 31, 2015 and 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 82% of these deposits as of March 31, 2015, compared with 83% as of December 31, 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 March 2015, approximately $3.8 billion, or 10%, 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. As of March 31, 2015 and December 31, 2014, we held $2.0 billion short-term unsecured deposits with two financial institutions that had 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. See “Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity Management—Cash and Other Investments Portfolio” for more detailed information on our cash and other investments portfolio.
Derivative Counterparty Credit Exposure
Our derivative counterparty credit exposure relates principally to interest rate derivative contracts. We are exposed to the risk that a counterparty in a derivative transaction will default on payments due to us, which may require us to seek a replacement derivative from a different counterparty. This replacement may be at a higher cost, or we may be unable to find a suitable 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

61