Home > Mortgages > Fannie and Freddie Legal Bills Cost Taxpayers $160 Million+

Comments 0 Comments

American taxpayers already have spent more than $160 million to defend lawsuits against Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two federally-owned mortgage giants. More than $24 million of that money went to defend Fannie’s top three former executives, who caused many of the lawsuits by “deliberately and systematically” lying about the company’s earnings to boost their own salaries, according to an investigation by federal regulators.

And the legal bills will only continue to climb as lawsuits and investigations continue into misconduct at Fannie and Freddie, according to The New York Times. The newspaper reviewed a report on Fannie and Freddie’s legal expenses that was prepared by the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which regulates both companies, for Rep. Randy Neugebauer (R-Texas). Fannie, Freddie, the FHFA and Neugebauer’s office did not return calls and e-mails seeking comment and a copy of the report.

Neugebauer, the new chair of the House Finance subcommittee Oversight and Investigations, has pressed for reform of Fannie and Freddie, but said recently that it could take a year to pass reform legislation.

“One of the things I feel very strongly about is we need to be doing everything we can to minimize any further exposure to the taxpayers associated with these companies,” Neugebauer told the Times.

Franklin Raines, Fannie’s former CEO, together with Timothy Howard, the former chief financial officer and Leanne Spencer, the former controller, manipulated the company’s profits between 1998 and 2004, according to a report by the FHFA. The accounting shenanigans allowed them to exactly hit profit projections every quarter. That created the false impression that the company was extremely well-run, but actually resulted in it overstating revenues by $10 billion, which boosted the three executives’ bonuses by $115 million.

Fannie Mae was forced to pay a fine to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

“Those achievements were illusions deliberately and systematically created by the Enterprise’s senior management,” the regulator found.

This long-running fraud by upper management has created even longer-running court battles that could end up costing American taxpayers many millions more. One of the biggest lawsuits is being brought by two public employee retirement systems in Ohio. The suit was filed six years ago and depositions are still being taken, the Times reported, which means it will likely drag on for many more years, and wrack up millions more dollars in legal fees.

Image: carnaval_08, via Flickr.com

Comments on articles and responses to those comments are not provided or commissioned by a bank advertiser. Responses have not been reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by a bank advertiser. It is not a bank advertiser's responsibility to ensure all posts and/or questions are answered.

Please note that our comments are moderated, so it may take a little time before you see them on the page. Thanks for your patience.

Certain credit cards and other financial products mentioned in this and other sponsored content on Credit.com are Partners with Credit.com. Credit.com receives compensation if our users apply for and ultimately sign up for any financial products or cards offered.

Hello, Reader!

Thanks for checking out Credit.com. We hope you find the site and the journalism we produce useful. We wanted to take some time to tell you a bit about ourselves.

Our People

The Credit.com editorial team is staffed by a team of editors and reporters, each with many years of financial reporting experience. We’ve worked for places like the New York Times, American Banker, Frontline, TheStreet.com, Business Insider, ABC News, NBC News, CNBC and many others. We also employ a few freelancers and more than 50 contributors (these are typically subject matter experts from the worlds of finance, academia, politics, business and elsewhere).

Our Reporting

We take great pains to ensure that the articles, video and graphics you see on Credit.com are thoroughly reported and fact-checked. Each story is read by two separate editors, and we adhere to the highest editorial standards. We’re not perfect, however, and if you see something that you think is wrong, please email us at editorial team [at] credit [dot] com,

The Credit.com editorial team is committed to providing our readers and viewers with sound, well-reported and understandable information designed to inform and empower. We won’t tell you what to do. We will, however, do our best to explain the consequences of various actions, thereby arming you with the information you need to make decisions that are in your best interests. We also write about things relating to money and finance we think are interesting and want to share.

In addition to appearing on Credit.com, our articles are syndicated to dozens of other news sites. We have more than 100 partners, including MSN, ABC News, CBS News, Yahoo, Marketwatch, Scripps, Money Magazine and many others. This network operates similarly to the Associated Press or Reuters, except we focus almost exclusively on issues relating to personal finance. These are not advertorial or paid placements, rather we provide these articles to our partners in most cases for free. These relationships create more awareness of Credit.com in general and they result in more traffic to us as well.

Our Business Model

Credit.com’s journalism is largely supported by an e-commerce business model. Rather than rely on revenue from display ad impressions, Credit.com maintains a financial marketplace separate from its editorial pages. When someone navigates to those pages, and applies for a credit card, for example, Credit.com will get paid what is essentially a finder’s fee if that person ends up getting the card. That doesn’t mean, however, that our editorial decisions are informed by the products available in our marketplace. The editorial team chooses what to write about and how to write about it independently of the decisions and priorities of the business side of the company. In fact, we maintain a strict and important firewall between the editorial and business departments. Our mission as journalists is to serve the reader, not the advertiser. In that sense, we are no different from any other news organization that is supported by ad revenue.

Visitors to Credit.com are also able to register for a free Credit.com account, which gives them access to a tool called The Credit Report Card. This tool provides users with two free credit scores and a breakdown of the information in their Experian credit report, updated twice monthly. Again, this tool is entirely free, and we mention that frequently in our articles, because we think that it’s a good thing for users to have access to data like this. Separate from its educational value, there is also a business angle to the Credit Report Card. Registered users can be matched with products and services for which they are most likely to qualify. In other words, if you register and you find that your credit is less than stellar, Credit.com won’t recommend a high-end platinum credit card that requires an excellent credit score You’d likely get rejected, and that’s no good for you or Credit.com. You’d be no closer to getting a product you need, there’d be a wasted inquiry on your credit report, and Credit.com wouldn’t get paid. These are essentially what are commonly referred to as "targeted ads" in the world of the Internet. Despite all of this, however, even if you never apply for any product, the Credit Report Card will remain free, and none of this will impact how the editorial team reports on credit and credit scores.

Your Stories

Lastly, much of what we do is informed by our own experiences as well as the experiences of our readers. We want to tell your stories if you’re interested in sharing them. Please email us at story ideas [at] credit [dot] com with ideas or visit us on Facebook or Twitter.

Thanks for stopping by.

- The Credit.com Editorial Team