Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2018
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies We are party to various types of legal actions and proceedings, including actions brought on behalf of various classes of claimants. We also are subject to regulatory examinations, inquiries and investigations, and other information gathering requests. In some of the matters, indeterminate amounts are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. This variability in pleadings, together with our and our counsel’s actual experience in litigating or settling claims, leads us to conclude that the monetary relief that may be sought by plaintiffs bears little relevance to the merits or disposition value of claims. On a quarterly basis, we review relevant information about all pending legal actions and proceedings for the purpose of evaluating and revising our contingencies, accruals and disclosures. We have substantial and valid defenses to the claims in the proceedings described below and intend to defend these matters vigorously. However, legal actions and proceedings of all types are subject to many uncertain factors that generally cannot be predicted with assurance. Accordingly, the outcome of any given matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time is frequently difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how courts will apply the law. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel may view the evidence and applicable law. We establish an accrual only for matters when a loss is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of such loss. We are often unable to estimate the possible losses or ranges of losses, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development, where plaintiffs seek indeterminate or unspecified damages, where there may be novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings, or where settlement negotiations have not occurred or progressed. Given the uncertainties involved in any action or proceeding, regardless of whether we have established an accrual, the ultimate resolution of certain of these matters may be material to our operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of our net income or loss for that period. In addition to the matters specifically described below, we are involved in a number of legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business that we do not expect will have a material impact on our business or financial condition. We have also advanced fees and expenses of certain current and former officers and directors in connection with various legal proceedings pursuant to our bylaws and indemnification agreements. Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements Litigation A consolidated class action and three non-class action lawsuits filed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against us, FHFA as our conservator, and Freddie Mac that challenge the August 2012 amendment to each company’s senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. In the consolidated class action (“In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations”), plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 1, 2017 that alleges the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendments nullified certain of the shareholders’ rights, particularly the right to receive dividends. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of Delaware and Virginia corporate law against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, and breach of fiduciary duties claims derivatively on our and Freddie Mac’s behalf against FHFA. Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of preferred and/or common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac who held stock as of the public announcement of the August 2012 amendments. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on January 10, 2018. In two of the non-class action suits, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae and Fairholme Funds v. FHFA, the plaintiffs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred shareholders, filed amended complaints on November 1, 2017 against us, FHFA as our conservator, the Director of FHFA (in his official capacity) and Freddie Mac alleging that the net worth sweep dividend provisions nullified certain rights of the preferred shareholders, particularly the right to receive dividends, and exceeded FHFA’s statutory authority. Plaintiffs bring claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duties and violations of Delaware and Virginia corporate law. They also assert claims for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act against FHFA. Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. Defendants moved to dismiss both amended complaints on January 10, 2018. On May 21, 2018, another Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholder filed a pro se complaint for declaratory relief and compensatory damages against Fannie Mae (including certain members of its Board of Directors), Freddie Mac (including certain members of its Board of Directors) and FHFA, as conservator. Plaintiff in that case, Angel v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, and aiding and abetting the federal government in avoiding an alleged implicit guarantee of dividend payments. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on July 12, 2018. On August 2, 2017, shareholder David J. Voacolo filed a lawsuit, Voacolo v. Fannie Mae, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Fannie Mae and the United States alleging that the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendments to the senior preferred stock purchase agreements were a violation of due process and an illegal exaction. Plaintiff seeks damages only. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 26, 2018. On May 4, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss. Given the stage of these lawsuits, the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.

Commitments and Contingencies

We are party to various types of legal actions and proceedings, including actions brought on behalf of various classes of claimants. We also are subject to regulatory examinations, inquiries and investigations, and other information gathering requests. In some of the matters, indeterminate amounts are sought. Modern pleading practice in the U.S. permits considerable variation in the assertion of monetary damages or other relief. Jurisdictions may permit claimants not to specify the monetary damages sought or may permit claimants to state only that the amount sought is sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the trial court. This variability in pleadings, together with our and our counsel’s actual experience in litigating or settling claims, leads us to conclude that the monetary relief that may be sought by plaintiffs bears little relevance to the merits or disposition value of claims.

On a quarterly basis, we review relevant information about all pending legal actions and proceedings for the purpose of evaluating and revising our contingencies, accruals and disclosures.

We have substantial and valid defenses to the claims in the proceedings described below and intend to defend these matters vigorously. However, legal actions and proceedings of all types are subject to many uncertain factors that generally cannot be predicted with assurance. Accordingly, the outcome of any given matter and the amount or range of potential loss at particular points in time is frequently difficult to ascertain. Uncertainties can include how fact finders will evaluate documentary evidence and the credibility and effectiveness of witness testimony, and how courts will apply the law. Disposition valuations are also subject to the uncertainty of how opposing parties and their counsel may view the evidence and applicable law.

We establish an accrual only for matters when a loss is probable and we can reasonably estimate the amount of such loss. We are often unable to estimate the possible losses or ranges of losses, particularly for proceedings that are in their early stages of development, where plaintiffs seek indeterminate or unspecified damages, where there may be novel or unsettled legal questions relevant to the proceedings, or where settlement negotiations have not occurred or progressed.

Given the uncertainties involved in any action or proceeding, regardless of whether we have established an accrual, the ultimate resolution of certain of these matters may be material to our operating results for a particular period, depending on, among other factors, the size of the loss or liability imposed and the level of our net income or loss for that period.

In addition to the matters specifically described below, we are involved in a number of legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business that we do not expect will have a material impact on our business or financial condition. We have also advanced fees and expenses of certain current and former officers and directors in connection with various legal proceedings pursuant to our bylaws and indemnification agreements.

Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreements Litigation

A consolidated class action and three non-class action lawsuits filed by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholders are pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against us, FHFA as our conservator, and Freddie Mac that challenge the August 2012 amendment to each company’s senior preferred stock purchase agreement with Treasury. In the consolidated class action (“In re Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac Senior Preferred Stock Purchase Agreement Class Action Litigations”), plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on November 1, 2017 that alleges the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendments nullified certain of the shareholders’ rights, particularly the right to receive dividends. Plaintiffs allege claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duties, and violations of Delaware and Virginia corporate law against us, FHFA and Freddie Mac, and breach of fiduciary duties claims derivatively on our and Freddie Mac’s behalf against FHFA. Plaintiffs seek to represent several classes of preferred and/or common shareholders of Fannie Mae and/or Freddie Mac who held stock as of the public announcement of the August 2012 amendments. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on January 10, 2018.

In two of the non-class action suits, Arrowood Indemnity Company v. Fannie Mae and Fairholme Funds v. FHFA, the plaintiffs, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac preferred shareholders, filed amended complaints on November 1, 2017 against us, FHFA as our conservator, the Director of FHFA (in his official capacity) and Freddie Mac alleging that the net worth sweep dividend provisions nullified certain rights of the preferred shareholders, particularly the right to receive dividends, and exceeded FHFA’s statutory authority. Plaintiffs bring claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duties and violations of Delaware and Virginia corporate law. They also assert claims for violation of the Administrative Procedure Act against FHFA. Plaintiffs seek damages, equitable and injunctive relief, and costs and expenses, including attorneys’ fees. Defendants moved to dismiss both amended complaints on January 10, 2018.

On May 21, 2018, another Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac shareholder filed a pro se complaint for declaratory relief and compensatory damages against Fannie Mae (including certain members of its Board of Directors), Freddie Mac (including certain members of its Board of Directors) and FHFA, as conservator. Plaintiff in that case, Angel v. Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, asserts claims for breach of contract, breach of implied covenants of good faith and fair dealing, and aiding and abetting the federal government in avoiding an alleged implicit guarantee of dividend payments. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on July 12, 2018.

On August 2, 2017, shareholder David J. Voacolo filed a lawsuit, Voacolo v. Fannie Mae, in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Fannie Mae and the United States alleging that the net worth sweep dividend provisions of the senior preferred stock that were implemented pursuant to the August 2012 amendments to the senior preferred stock purchase agreements were a violation of due process and an illegal exaction. Plaintiff seeks damages only. Defendants filed motions to dismiss on March 26, 2018. On May 4, 2018, the court granted defendants’ motions to dismiss.

Given the stage of these lawsuits, the substantial and novel legal questions that remain, and our substantial defenses, we are currently unable to estimate the reasonably possible loss or range of loss arising from this litigation.