e10vk

UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
Washington, D.C. 20549

Form 10-K

ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007

Commission File No.: 0-50231

Federal National Mortgage Association

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

Fannie Mae


Federally chartered corporation (State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization)		52-0883107 (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)

3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC (Address of principal executive offices)		20016 (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code:

(202) 752-7000

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

None

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

Common Stock, without par value

(Title of class)

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes o No þ

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Act. Yes o No þ

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes þ No o

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant’s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, or a smaller reporting company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer” and “smaller reporting company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act. (Check one):


Large accelerated filer þ		Accelerated filer o		Non-accelerated filer o (Do not check if a smaller reporting company)		Smaller reporting company o

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Act). Yes o No þ

The aggregate market value of the common stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant computed by reference to the price at which the common stock was last sold on June 29, 2007 (the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter) was approximately $63,724 million.

As of January 31, 2008, there were 978,284,482 shares of common stock of the registrant outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE:

Portions of the registrant’s Proxy Statement for the 2008 Annual Meeting of Shareholders and the registrant’s Current Report on Form 8-K to be filed contemporaneously with the Proxy Statement are incorporated by reference in this Form 10-K in response to Items 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of Part III.

TABLE OF CONTENTS


PART I			1
	Item 1.	Business	1
		Overview	1
		Residential Mortgage Market Overview	1
		Our Customers	3
		Business Segments	4
		Competition	12
		Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities	12
		Executive Officers	20
		Employees	21
		Where You Can Find Additional Information	22
		Forward-Looking Statements	22
	Item 1A.	Risk Factors	24
		Company Risks	24
		Risks Relating to Our Industry	33
	Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments	35
	Item 2.	Properties	35
	Item 3.	Legal Proceedings	35
	Item 4.	Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders	40
PART II			42
	Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities	42
	Item 6.	Selected Financial Data	45
	Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations	48
		Executive Summary	48
		Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates	51
		Consolidated Results of Operations	60
		Business Segment Results	82
		Consolidated Balance Sheet Analysis	87
		Supplemental Non-GAAP Information—Fair Value Balance Sheets	100
		Liquidity and Capital Management	108
		Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Variable Interest Entities	116
		Risk Management	119
		Impact of Future Adoption of New Accounting Pronouncements	150
		Glossary of Terms Used in This Report	151
	Item 7A.	Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures about Market Risk	156
	Item 8.	Financial Statements and Supplementary Data	156
	Item 9.	Changes in and Disagreements with Accountants on Accounting and Financial Disclosure	156
	Item 9A.	Controls and Procedures	156
	Item 9B.	Other Information	160

MD&A TABLE REFERENCE


Table		Description	Page

	—	Selected Financial Data		45
	1	Effect on Earnings of Significant Market-Based Valuation Adjustments		49
	2	Derivative Assets and Liabilities at Estimated Fair Value		53
	3	Condensed Consolidated Results of Operations		60
	4	Analysis of Net Interest Income and Yield		61
	5	Rate/Volume Analysis of Net Interest Income		62
	6	Analysis of Guaranty Fee Income and Average Effective Guaranty Fee Rate		64
	7	Fee and Other Income		65
	8	Investment Gains (Losses), Net		67
	9	Derivatives Fair Value Gains (Losses), Net		69
	10	Administrative Expenses		72
	11	Credit-Related Expenses		72
	12	Allowance for Loan Losses and Reserve for Guaranty Losses		74
	13	Statistics on Seriously Delinquent Loans Purchased from MBS Trusts Subject to SOP 03-3		75
	14	Activity of Seriously Delinquent Loans Acquired from MBS Trusts Subject to SOP 03-3		76
	15	Re-performance Rates of Delinquent Single-Family Loans Purchased from MBS Trusts		76
	16	Re-performance Rates of Delinquent Single-Family Loans Purchased from MBS Trusts and Modified		77
	17	Credit Loss Performance Metrics		80
	18	Single-Family Credit Loss Sensitivity		81
	19	Single-Family Business Results		83
	20	HCD Business Results		84
	21	Capital Markets Group Business Results		86
	22	Mortgage Portfolio Activity		87
	23	Mortgage Portfolio Composition		89
	24	Non-Mortgage Investments		90
	25	Amortized Cost, Fair Value, Maturity and Average Yield of Investments in Available-for-Sale Securities		91
	26	Investments in Alt-A and Subprime Mortgage-Related Securities		93
	27	Debt Activity		95
	28	Outstanding Debt		96
	29	Outstanding Short-Term Borrowings		96
	30	Notional and Fair Value of Derivatives		98
	31	Changes in Risk Management Derivative Assets (Liabilities) at Fair Value, Net		99
	32	Purchased Options Premiums		100
	33	Non-GAAP Supplemental Consolidated Fair Value Balance Sheets		102
	34	Selected Market Information		106

iii

PART I

Because of the complexity of our business and the industry in which we operate, we have included in this annual report on Form 10-K a glossary under “Part II—Item 7—Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”)—Glossary of Terms Used in This Report.”


Item 1.	Business

OVERVIEW

Fannie Mae’s activities enhance the liquidity and stability of the mortgage market and contribute to making housing in the United States more affordable and more available to low-, moderate- and middle-income Americans. These activities include providing funds to mortgage lenders through our purchases of mortgage assets, and issuing and guaranteeing mortgage-related securities that facilitate the flow of additional funds into the mortgage market. We also make other investments that increase the supply of affordable housing.

We are a government-sponsored enterprise (“GSE”) chartered by the U.S. Congress under the name “Federal National Mortgage Association” and are aligned with national policies to support expanded access to housing and increased opportunities for homeownership. We are subject to government oversight and regulation. Our regulators include the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (“OFHEO”), the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”), and the Department of the Treasury.

Although we are a corporation chartered by the U.S. Congress, the U.S. government does not guarantee, directly or indirectly, our securities or other obligations. We are a stockholder-owned corporation, and our business is self-sustaining and funded exclusively with private capital. Our common stock is listed on the New York Stock Exchange, and traded under the symbol “FNM.” Our debt securities are actively traded in the over-the-counter market.

RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE MARKET OVERVIEW

We operate in the U.S. residential mortgage market, specifically in the secondary mortgage market where mortgages are bought and sold. We discuss below market and economic factors affecting our business and our role in the secondary mortgage market.

Market and Economic Factors Affecting Our Business

Our business operates within the U.S. residential mortgage market, and therefore, we consider the amount of U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding to be the best measure of the size of our overall market. As of September 30, 2007, the latest date for which information was available, the amount of U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding was estimated by the Federal Reserve to be approximately $11.8 trillion (including $11.0 trillion of single-family mortgages). Our mortgage credit book of business, which includes mortgage assets we hold in our investment portfolio, our Fannie Mae mortgage-backed securities (“Fannie Mae MBS”) held by third parties and credit enhancements that we provide on mortgage assets, was $2.8 trillion as of September 30, 2007, or approximately 23% of total U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding.

The table below provides overall housing and mortgage market statistics for 2007, 2006 and 2005.

Housing and Mortgage Market Data⁽¹⁾


	2007			2006			2005

Home sales (units in thousands)		6,426			7,529			8,359
Home price appreciation (depreciation) based on Fannie Mae House Price Index⁽²⁾		(3.1	)%		1.1	%		12.9	%
Home price appreciation (depreciation) based on OFHEO Purchase-Only House Price Index⁽³⁾		(0.3	)%		4.1	%		9.6	%
Single-family mortgage originations (in billions)	$	2,488		$	2,761		$	3,034
Type of single-family mortgage origination:
Purchase share		50.1	%		52.4	%		49.8	%
Refinance share		49.9	%		47.6	%		50.2	%
Adjustable-rate mortgage share⁽⁴⁾		17.8	%		28.6	%		32.4	%
Fixed-rate mortgage share		82.2	%		71.4	%		67.6	%
Residential mortgage debt outstanding (in billions)⁽⁵⁾	$	—		$	11,173		$	10,036


⁽¹⁾		The sources of the housing and mortgage market data in this table are the Federal Reserve Board, the Bureau of the Census, HUD, the National Association of Realtors, the Mortgage Bankers Association and OFHEO. Single-family mortgage originations, as well as the purchase and refinance shares, are based on February 2008 estimates from Fannie Mae’s Economics & Mortgage Market Analysis Group. Certain previously reported data may have been changed to reflect revised historical data from any or all of these organizations.

⁽²⁾		Fannie Mae calculates a House Price Index (“HPI”) quarterly using data provided by Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and other third party data on home sales. Fannie Mae’s HPI is a weighted repeat transactions index, meaning that it measures average price changes in repeat sales on the same properties. House price appreciation (depreciation) reported above reflects the percentage change in Fannie Mae’s HPI from the fourth quarter of the prior year to the fourth quarter of the reported year.

⁽³⁾		OFHEO publishes a purchase-only House Price Index quarterly using data provided by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. OFHEO’s HPI is a truncated measure because it is based solely on loans from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. As a result, it excludes loans in excess of conforming loan amounts, or jumbo loans, and includes only a portion of total subprime and Alt-A loans outstanding in the overall market. OFHEO’s HPI is a weighted repeat transactions index, meaning that it measures average price changes in repeat sales on the same properties. House price appreciation (depreciation) reported above reflects the percentage change in OFHEO’s HPI from the fourth quarter of the prior year to the fourth quarter of the reported year.

⁽⁴⁾		The adjustable-rate mortgage share is the share of conventional mortgage applications that consisted of adjustable-rate mortgages, as reported in the Mortgage Bankers Association’s Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey.

⁽⁵⁾		The Federal Reserve’s residential mortgage debt outstanding data as of December 31, 2007 was not available as of the date of this report.

Mortgage and housing market conditions, which significantly affect our business and our financial performance, worsened progressively through 2007. The housing market downturn that began in the second half of 2006 continued through 2007 and is continuing in 2008. The most recent available data show significant declines in new and existing home sales, housing starts and mortgage originations compared with prior year levels. Overall housing demand decreased over the past year due to a slowdown in the overall economy, affordability constraints, and declines in demand for investor properties and second homes, which had been a key driver of overall housing activity. In addition, inventories of unsold homes have risen significantly over the past year. The decreased demand and increased supply in the housing market has put downward pressure on home prices. We estimate that home prices declined by 3.1% on a national basis during 2007. With weak housing activity and national home price declines, growth in total U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding slowed to an estimated annual rate of 8% in the first nine months of 2007, compared with 12% over the first nine months of 2006.

These challenging market and economic conditions caused a material increase in mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures during 2007. The credit performance of subprime and Alt-A loans, as well as other higher risk loans, has deteriorated sharply during the past year, and even the prime conventional portion of the mortgage

market has seen signs of credit distress. Many lenders have tightened lending standards or elected to stop originating subprime and other higher risk loans completely, which has adversely affected many borrowers seeking alternative financing to refinance out of adjustable-rate mortgages (“ARMs”) resetting to higher rates.

The reduction in liquidity and funding sources in the mortgage credit market has led to a substantial shift in mortgage originations. The share of mortgage originations consisting of traditional fixed-rate conforming mortgages has increased substantially, while the share of mortgage originations consisting of Alt-A and subprime mortgages has dropped significantly. Moreover, credit concerns and the resulting liquidity issues have affected the general capital markets. During the second half of 2007, the capital markets were characterized by high levels of volatility, reduced levels of liquidity in the mortgage and broader credit markets, significantly wider credit spreads and rating agency downgrades on a growing number of mortgage-related securities. In response to concerns over liquidity in the financial markets, from August 2007 through January 2008, the Federal Reserve reduced its discount rate by a total of 275 basis points to 3.50% and lowered the federal funds rate during this period by a total of 225 basis points to 3.00%. After rising in the first half of the year, long-term bond yields declined during the second half of 2007. As short-term interest rates decreased in the second half of 2007, the spread between long- and short-term interest rates widened, resulting in a steepening of the yield curve.

We expect the slower growth trend in U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding to continue throughout 2008, and we believe average home prices are likely to continue to decline in 2008. See “Item 1A—Risk Factors” for a description of the risks associated with the housing market downturn and recent home price declines.

Our Role in the Secondary Mortgage Market

The U.S. Congress chartered Fannie Mae and certain other GSEs to help ensure stability and liquidity within the secondary mortgage market. In addition, we believe our activities and those of other GSEs help lower the costs of borrowing in the mortgage market, which makes housing more affordable and increases homeownership, especially for low- to moderate-income families. We believe our activities also increase the supply of affordable rental housing.

We operate in the secondary mortgage market where mortgages are bought and sold. We securitize mortgage loans originated by lenders in the primary mortgage market into Fannie Mae MBS, which can then be readily bought and sold in the secondary mortgage market. For a description of the securitization process, refer to “Business Segments—Single-Family Credit Guaranty Business—Mortgage Securitizations” below. By delivering loans to us in exchange for Fannie Mae MBS, lenders gain the advantage of holding a highly liquid instrument that offers them the flexibility to determine under what conditions they will hold or sell the MBS. We also participate in the secondary mortgage market by purchasing mortgage loans (often referred to as “whole loans”) and mortgage-related securities, including Fannie Mae MBS, for our mortgage portfolio. By selling loans and mortgage-related securities to us, lenders replenish their funds and, consequently, are able to make additional loans. Under our charter, we may not lend money directly to consumers in the primary mortgage market.

OUR CUSTOMERS

Our principal customers are lenders that operate within the primary mortgage market where mortgage loans are originated and funds are loaned to borrowers. Our customers include mortgage banking companies, investment banks, savings and loan associations, savings banks, commercial banks, credit unions, community banks, insurance companies, and state and local housing finance agencies. Lenders originating mortgages in the primary mortgage market often sell them in the secondary mortgage market in the form of whole loans or in the form of mortgage-related securities.

During 2007, approximately 1,000 lenders delivered mortgage loans to us, either for securitization or for purchase. We acquire a significant portion of our single-family mortgage loans from several large mortgage lenders. During 2007, our top five lender customers, in the aggregate, accounted for approximately 56% of our single-family business volume, compared with 51% in 2006.

Our top customer, Countrywide Financial Corporation (through its subsidiaries), accounted for approximately 28% of our single-family business volume in 2007, compared with 26% in 2006. In January 2008, Bank of America Corporation announced that it had reached an agreement to purchase Countrywide Financial Corporation. Together, Bank of America and Countrywide accounted for approximately 32% of our single-family business volume in 2007. If the merger is completed and the combined company continues to account for the same percentage of our business volume as the two prior companies, Bank of America will become our largest customer. We cannot predict at this time whether or when this merger will be completed and what effect the merger, if completed, will have on our relationship with Countrywide and Bank of America. Due to increasing consolidation within the mortgage industry, as well as a number of mortgage lenders having gone out of business since late 2006, we, as well as our competitors, seek business from a decreasing number of large mortgage lenders. See “Item 1A—Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks that this customer concentration poses to our business.

BUSINESS SEGMENTS

We are organized in three complementary business segments: Single-Family Credit Guaranty, Housing and Community Development, and Capital Markets. The table below displays net revenues, net income (loss) and total assets for each of our business segments for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005.

Business Segment Summary Financial Information


	For the Year Ended December 31,
	2007			2006		2005
	(Dollars in millions)

Net revenues:⁽¹⁾
Single-Family Credit Guaranty	$	7,039		$	6,073	$	5,585
Housing and Community Development		424			510		607
Capital Markets		3,528			5,202		10,764

Total	$	10,991		$	11,785	$	16,956

Net income (loss):
Single-Family Credit Guaranty	$	(858	)	$	2,044	$	2,623
Housing and Community Development		157			338		503
Capital Markets		(1,349	)		1,677		3,221

Total	$	(2,050	)	$	4,059	$	6,347


	As of December 31,
	2007		2006		2005
	(Dollars in millions)

Total assets:
Single-Family Credit Guaranty	$	23,356	$	15,777	$	14,450
Housing and Community Development		15,094		14,100		12,075
Capital Markets		844,097		814,059		807,643

Total	$	882,547	$	843,936	$	834,168


⁽¹⁾		Includes net interest income, guaranty fee income, trust management income, and fee and other income.

For information on the results of operations of our business segments, see “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Business Segment Results.”

Single-Family Credit Guaranty Business

Our Single-Family Credit Guaranty (“Single-Family”) business works with our lender customers to securitize single-family mortgage loans into Fannie Mae MBS and to facilitate the purchase of single-family mortgage loans for our mortgage portfolio. Single-family mortgage loans relate to properties with four or fewer residential units. Revenues in the segment are derived primarily from: (i) guaranty fees received as compensation for assuming the credit risk on the mortgage loans underlying single-family Fannie Mae MBS

and on the single-family mortgage loans held in our portfolio and (ii) trust management income, which is a fee we earn derived from interest earned on cash flows between the date of remittance of mortgage and other payments to us by servicers and the date of distribution of these payments to MBS certificateholders.

The aggregate amount of single-family guaranty fees we receive in any period depends on the amount of Fannie Mae MBS outstanding during that period and the applicable guaranty fee rates. The amount of Fannie Mae MBS outstanding at any time is primarily determined by the rate at which we issue new Fannie Mae MBS and by the repayment rate for the loans underlying our outstanding Fannie Mae MBS. Less significant factors affecting the amount of Fannie Mae MBS outstanding are the extent to which Fannie Mae purchases loans from its MBS trusts because of borrower default (with the amount of these purchases affected by rates of borrower defaults on the loans) or because the loans do not conform to the representations made by the lenders.

Mortgage Securitizations

Our most common type of securitization transaction is referred to as a “lender swap transaction.” Mortgage lenders that operate in the primary mortgage market generally deliver pools of mortgage loans to us in exchange for Fannie Mae MBS backed by these loans. After receiving the loans in a lender swap transaction, we place them in a trust that is established for the sole purpose of holding the loans separate and apart from our assets. We serve as trustee for the trust. Upon creation of the trust, we deliver to the lender (or its designee) Fannie Mae MBS that are backed by the pool of mortgage loans in the trust and that represent a beneficial ownership interest in each of the loans. We guarantee to each MBS trust that we will supplement amounts received by the MBS trust as required to permit timely payment of principal and interest on the related Fannie Mae MBS. We retain a portion of the interest payment as the fee for providing our guaranty. Then, on behalf of the trust, we make monthly distributions to the Fannie Mae MBS certificateholders from the principal and interest payments and other collections on the underlying mortgage loans.

The following diagram illustrates the basic process by which we create a typical Fannie Mae MBS in the case where a lender chooses to sell the Fannie Mae MBS to a third-party investor.

We issue both single-class and multi-class Fannie Mae MBS. Single-class Fannie Mae MBS refers to Fannie Mae MBS where the investors receive principal and interest payments in proportion to their percentage ownership of the MBS issue. Multi-class Fannie Mae MBS refers to Fannie Mae MBS, including real estate mortgage investment conduits (“REMICs”), where the cash flows on the underlying mortgage assets are divided, creating several classes of securities, each of which represents a beneficial ownership interest in a separate portion of cash flows. By separating the cash flows, the resulting classes may consist of: (1) interest-only payments; (2) principal-only payments; (3) different portions of the principal and interest payments; or (4) combinations of each of these. Terms to maturity of some multi-class Fannie Mae MBS, particularly REMIC classes, may match or be shorter than the maturity of the underlying mortgage loans and/or mortgage-related securities. As a result, each of the classes in a multi-class Fannie Mae MBS may have a different coupon rate, average life, repayment sensitivity or final maturity. We also issue structured Fannie Mae MBS, which are multi-class Fannie Mae MBS or single-class Fannie Mae MBS that are resecuritizations of other single-class Fannie Mae MBS.

MBS Trusts

Single-Family Master Trust Agreement

Each of our single-family MBS trusts formed on or after June 1, 2007 is governed by the terms of our single-family master trust agreement. Each of our single-family MBS trusts formed prior to June 1, 2007 is governed either by our fixed-rate or adjustable-rate trust indenture. In addition, each MBS trust, regardless of the date of its formation, is governed by an issue supplement documenting the formation of that MBS trust and the issuance of the Fannie Mae MBS by that trust. The master trust agreement or the trust indenture, together with the issue supplement and any amendments, are the “trust documents” that govern an individual MBS trust.

Optional and Required Purchases of Mortgage Loans from Single-Family MBS Trusts

In accordance with the terms of our single-family MBS trust documents, we have the option or the obligation, in some instances, to purchase specified mortgage loans from an MBS trust. Our acquisition cost for these loans is the unpaid principal balance of the loan plus accrued interest.

Optional Purchases

Under our single-family trust documents, we have the right, but are not required, to purchase a mortgage loan from an MBS trust under a variety of circumstances. When we elect to purchase a mortgage loan or real-estate owned (“REO”) property from an MBS trust, we primarily do so in one of the following four situations:


	•	four or more consecutive monthly payments due under the loan are delinquent in whole or in part;

	•	there is a material breach of a representation and warranty made in connection with the transfer or sale of the mortgage loan to us;

	•	the mortgaged property is acquired by the trust as REO property; or

	•	the borrower transfers or proposes to transfer the mortgaged property and the transfer is not permitted by an enforceable “due-on-transfer” or “due-on-sale” provision without full payment of the mortgage loan.

We generally exercise our contractual option to purchase a mortgage loan from an MBS trust when we believe the benefit to us of owning the loan exceeds the benefit of leaving the loan in the trust. In deciding whether and when to purchase a loan from an MBS trust, we consider a variety of factors. In general, these factors include: our loss mitigation strategies and the exposure to credit losses we face under our guaranty; our cost of funds; the effect that a purchase will have on our capital; relevant market yields; the administrative costs associated with purchasing and holding the loan; mission and policy considerations; counterparty exposure to lenders that have agreed to cover losses associated with delinquent loans; general market conditions; our statutory obligations under our Charter Act; and other legal obligations such as those established by consumer finance laws. We may also purchase loans from an MBS trust, using the optional purchase provision relating to delinquent payments, as necessary to ensure compliance with provisions of the trust documents. Refer to “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” and “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—

Consolidated Results of Operations” for a description of our accounting for delinquent loans purchased from MBS trusts and the effect of these purchases on our 2007 financial results.

Required Purchases

Under our single-family trust documents, we generally are required to purchase a mortgage loan from an MBS trust if:


	•	a mortgage loan becomes and remains delinquent for 24 consecutive months (excluding months during which the borrower is complying with a loss mitigation remedy);

	•	for an adjustable-rate mortgage loan, the interest rate converts from an adjustable rate to a fixed rate, the index by which the interest rate is determined changes, or the mortgage margin or minimum and maximum interest rates are changed in connection with an assumption of the loan;

	•	the borrower exercises a conditional modification option on the maturity date of a loan requiring a final balloon payment or agrees to modify the loan instead of refinancing the loan in connection with the direct servicer’s strategy for retaining borrowers;

	•	we determine, or our regulator or a court determines, that our original acquisition of the mortgage loan was not permitted;

	•	a court or governmental entity requires us to purchase the mortgage loan;

	•	a mortgage insurer or guarantor requires us, after a default under a mortgage loan, to delay the exercise of loss mitigation remedies beyond any applicable period of time otherwise permitted by the trust documents; or

	•	a mortgage insurer or mortgage guarantor requires the trust to transfer a mortgage loan or related REO property in connection with an insurance or guaranty payment.

Mortgage Acquisitions

We acquire single-family mortgage loans for securitization or for our investment portfolio through either our flow or bulk transaction channels. In our flow business, we enter into agreements that generally set agreed-upon guaranty fee prices for a lender’s future delivery of individual loans to us over a specified time period. Because these agreements establish guaranty fee prices for an extended period of time, we may be limited in our ability to renegotiate the pricing on our flow transactions with individual lenders to reflect changes in market conditions and the credit risk of mortgage loans that meet our eligibility standards. These agreements permit us, however, to charge risk-based price adjustments that apply to all loans delivered to us with certain risk characteristics. Flow business represents the majority of our mortgage acquisition volumes.

Our bulk business consists of transactions in which a defined set of loans are to be delivered to us in bulk, and we have the opportunity to review the loans for eligibility and pricing prior to delivery in accordance with the terms of the applicable contracts. Guaranty fees and other contract terms for our bulk mortgage acquisitions are negotiated on an individual transaction basis. As a result, we generally have a greater ability to adjust our pricing more rapidly than in our flow transaction channel to reflect changes in market conditions and the credit risk of the specific transactions.

Mortgage Servicing

We do not perform the day-to-day servicing of the mortgage loans that are held in our mortgage portfolio or that back our Fannie Mae MBS (referred to as “primary servicing”). However, if a primary servicer defaults, we have ultimate responsibility for servicing the loans we purchase or guarantee until a new primary servicer can be put in place. We also have certain ongoing administrative functions in connection with the mortgage loans we securitize into Fannie Mae MBS. Typically, lenders who sell single-family mortgage loans to us initially service the mortgage loans they sell to us. There is an active market in which lenders sell servicing rights and obligations to other servicers. Our agreement with lenders requires our approval for all servicing

transfers. We may at times engage a servicing entity to service loans on our behalf due to termination of a servicer’s servicing relationship or for other reasons.

Mortgage servicers typically collect and remit principal and interest payments, administer escrow accounts, monitor and report delinquencies, evaluate transfers of ownership interests, respond to requests for partial releases of security, and handle proceeds from casualty and condemnation losses. For problem loans, servicing includes negotiating workouts, engaging in loss mitigation and, if necessary, inspecting and preserving properties and processing foreclosures and bankruptcies. We have the right to remove servicing responsibilities from any servicer under criteria established in our contractual arrangements with servicers. We compensate servicers primarily by permitting them to retain a specified portion of each interest payment on a serviced mortgage loan, called a “servicing fee.” Servicers also generally retain prepayment premiums, assumption fees, late payment charges and other similar charges, to the extent they are collected from borrowers, as additional servicing compensation. We also compensate servicers for negotiating workouts on problem loans.

Refer to “Item 1A—Risk Factors” and “Part II—MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk Management” for a discussion of the risks associated with a default by a mortgage servicer and how we seek to manage those risks.

Mortgage Credit Risk Management

Our Single-Family business has responsibility for managing our credit risk exposure relating to single-family Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties, as well as managing and pricing the credit risk of single-family mortgage loans and single-family Fannie Mae MBS held in our own mortgage portfolio. For a description of our methods for managing single-family mortgage credit risk, refer to “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Mortgage Credit Risk Management.”

Housing and Community Development Business

Our Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) business works with our lender customers to securitize multifamily mortgage loans into Fannie Mae MBS and to facilitate the purchase of multifamily mortgage loans for our mortgage portfolio. Our HCD business also makes debt and equity investments to increase the supply of affordable housing. Revenues in the segment are derived from a variety of sources, including the guaranty fees received as compensation for assuming the credit risk on the mortgage loans underlying multifamily Fannie Mae MBS and on the multifamily mortgage loans held in our portfolio, transaction fees associated with the multifamily business and bond credit enhancement fees. In addition, HCD’s investments in rental housing projects eligible for the federal low-income housing tax credit and other investments generate both tax credits and net operating losses that reduce our federal income tax liability. Other investments in rental and for-sale housing generate revenue and losses from operations and the eventual sale of the assets.

Mortgage Securitizations

Our HCD business securitizes multifamily mortgage loans into Fannie Mae MBS. Multifamily mortgage loans relate to properties with five or more residential units, which may be apartment communities, cooperative properties or manufactured housing communities. Our HCD business generally creates multifamily Fannie Mae MBS in the same manner as our Single-Family business creates single-family Fannie Mae MBS. See “Single-Family Credit Guaranty Business—Mortgage Securitizations” for a description of a typical lender swap securitization transaction.

MBS Trusts

Multifamily Master Trust Agreement

Each of our multifamily MBS trusts formed on or after September 1, 2007 is governed by the terms of our multifamily master trust agreement. Each of our multifamily MBS trusts formed prior to September 1, 2007 is governed either by our fixed-rate or adjustable-rate trust indenture. In addition, each MBS trust, regardless of

the date of its formation, is governed by an issue supplement documenting the formation of that MBS trust and the issuance of the Fannie Mae MBS by that trust.

Optional and Required Purchases of Mortgage Loans from Multifamily MBS Trusts

In accordance with the terms of our multifamily MBS trust documents, we have the option or the obligation, in some instances, to purchase specified mortgage loans from a trust. Our acquisition cost for these loans is the unpaid principal balance of the loan plus accrued interest. Under our multifamily trust documents, we have the option to purchase loans from a multifamily MBS trust under the same conditions and terms described under “Single-Family Credit Guaranty Business—MBS Trusts—Optional and Required Purchases of Mortgage Loans from Single-Family MBS Trusts—Optional Purchases.” In general, we exercise our option to purchase a loan from a multifamily MBS trust if the loan is delinquent, in whole or in part, as to four or more consecutive monthly payments. After we purchase the loan, we generally work with the borrower to modify the loan. Under our multifamily trust documents, we also are required to purchase loans from a multifamily MBS trust typically under the same conditions described under “Single-Family Credit Guaranty Business—MBS Trusts—Optional and Required Purchases of Mortgage Loans from Single-Family MBS Trusts—Required Purchases.”

Mortgage Acquisitions

Our HCD business acquires multifamily mortgage loans for securitization or for our investment portfolio through either our flow or bulk transaction channels, in substantially the same manner as described under “Single-Family Credit Guaranty Business—Mortgage Acquisitions.” In recent years, the percentage of our multifamily business activity that has consisted of purchases for our investment portfolio has increased relative to our securitization activity.

Mortgage Servicing

Multifamily mortgage servicing occurs in substantially the same manner as our single-family mortgage servicing described under “Single-Family Credit Guaranty Business—Mortgage Servicing.” However, in the case of multifamily loans, servicing also may include performing routine property inspections, evaluating the financial condition of owners, and administering various types of agreements (including agreements regarding replacement reserves, completion or repair, and operations and maintenance).

Affordable Housing Investments

Our HCD business helps to expand the supply of affordable housing by investing in rental and for-sale housing projects. Most of these investments are in rental housing that is eligible for federal low-income housing tax credits, and the remainder are in conventional rental and primarily entry-level, for-sale housing. These investments are consistent with our focus on serving communities and improving access to affordable housing.

LIHTC Partnerships. Our HCD business invests predominantly in low-income housing tax credit (“LIHTC”) limited partnerships or limited liability companies (referred to collectively as “LIHTC partnerships”) that directly or indirectly own an interest in rental housing developed or rehabilitated by the LIHTC partnerships. By renting a specified portion of the housing units to qualified low-income tenants over a 15-year period, the LIHTC partnerships become eligible for the federal low-income housing tax credit. The LIHTC partnerships are generally organized by fund manager sponsors who seek investments with third-party developers that, in turn, develop or rehabilitate the properties and then manage them. We invest in these partnerships in a non-controlling capacity, with the fund manager acting in a controlling capacity. We earn a return on our investments in LIHTC partnerships through reductions in our federal income tax liability that result from both our use of the tax credits for which the LIHTC partnerships qualify and the deductibility of the LIHTC partnerships’ net operating losses. For additional information regarding our investments in LIHTC partnerships and their impact on our financial results, refer to “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Consolidated Results of

Operations—Losses from Partnership Investments” and “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Off-Balance Sheet Arrangements and Variable Interest Entities.”

Equity Investments. Our HCD business also makes equity investments in rental and for-sale housing, typically through fund managers or directly with developers and operators. Because we invest in a non-controlling capacity, our exposure is generally limited to the amount of our investment. Our equity investments in for-sale housing generally involve the acquisition, development and/or construction of entry-level homes or the conversion of existing housing to entry-level homes.

Debt Investments. Our HCD business also helps to expand the supply of affordable housing by participating in specialized debt financing for a variety of customers. These activities include providing loans to community development financial institution intermediaries to re-lend for community revitalization projects that expand the supply of affordable housing; purchasing participation interests in acquisition, development and construction loans from lending institutions; and providing financing for single-family and multifamily housing to housing finance agencies, public housing authorities and municipalities.

Mortgage Credit Risk Management

Our HCD business has responsibility for managing our credit risk exposure relating to multifamily Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties, as well as managing and pricing the credit risk of multifamily mortgage loans and multifamily Fannie Mae MBS held in our mortgage portfolio. For a description of our methods for managing multifamily mortgage credit risk, refer to “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Mortgage Credit Risk Management.”

Capital Markets Group

Our Capital Markets group manages our investment activity in mortgage loans, mortgage-related securities and other investments, our debt financing activity, and our liquidity and capital positions. We fund our investments primarily through proceeds from our issuance of debt securities in the domestic and international capital markets.

Our Capital Markets group generates most of its revenue from the difference, or spread, between the interest we earn on our mortgage assets and the interest we pay on the debt we issue to fund these assets. We refer to this spread as our net interest yield. Changes in the fair value of the derivative instruments and trading securities we hold impact the net income or loss reported by the Capital Markets group business segment.

Mortgage Investments

Our mortgage investments include both mortgage-related securities and mortgage loans. We purchase primarily conventional (i.e., loans that are not federally insured or guaranteed) single-family fixed-rate or adjustable-rate, first lien mortgage loans, or mortgage-related securities backed by these types of loans. In addition, we purchase loans insured by the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”), loans guaranteed by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) or by the Rural Housing Service of the Department of Agriculture (“RHS”), manufactured housing loans, multifamily mortgage loans, subordinate lien mortgage loans (for example, loans secured by second liens) and other mortgage-related securities. Most of these loans are prepayable at the option of the borrower. Our investments in mortgage-related securities include structured mortgage-related securities such as REMICs. For information on our mortgage investments, including the composition of our mortgage investment portfolio by product type, refer to “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Consolidated Balance Sheet Analysis.”

Investment Activities

Our Capital Markets group seeks to maximize long-term total returns while fulfilling our chartered liquidity function. Our Capital Markets group increases the liquidity of the mortgage market by maintaining a constant presence as an active investor in mortgage assets and, in particular, supports the liquidity and value of Fannie Mae MBS in a variety of market conditions.

The Capital Markets group’s purchases and sales of mortgage assets in any given period generally are determined by the rates of return that we expect to earn on the equity capital underlying our investments. When we expect to earn returns greater than our other uses of capital, we generally will be an active purchaser of mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. When we believe that few opportunities exist to deploy capital in mortgage investments, we generally will be a less active purchaser, and may be a net seller, of mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities. This investment strategy is consistent with our chartered liquidity function, as the periods during which our purchase of mortgage assets is economically attractive to us generally have been periods in which market demand for mortgage assets is low.

The spread between the amount we earn on mortgage assets available for purchase or sale and our funding costs, after consideration of the net risks associated with the investment, is an important factor in determining whether we are a net buyer or seller of mortgage assets. When the spread between the yield on mortgage assets and our borrowing costs is wide, which is typically when market demand for mortgage assets is low, we will look for opportunities to add liquidity to the market primarily by purchasing mortgage assets and issuing debt to investors to fund those purchases. When this spread is narrow, which is typically when market demand for mortgage assets is high, we will look for opportunities to meet demand by selling mortgage assets from our portfolio.

Our investment activities are also affected by our capital requirements and other regulatory constraints, as described below under “Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities—Regulation and Oversight of Our Activities.”

Debt Financing Activities

Our Capital Markets group funds its investments primarily through the issuance of debt securities in the domestic and international capital markets. The objective of our debt financing activities is to manage our liquidity requirements while obtaining funds as efficiently as possible. We structure our financings not only to satisfy our funding and risk management requirements, but also to access the capital markets in an orderly manner using debt securities designed to appeal to a wide range of investors. International investors, seeking many of the features offered in our debt programs for their U.S. dollar-denominated investments, have been a significant source of funding in recent years.

Our debt trades in the “agency sector” of the capital markets, along with the debt of other GSEs. Debt in the agency sector benefits from bank regulations that allow commercial banks to invest in our debt and other agency debt to a greater extent than other corporate debt. These factors, along with the high credit rating of our senior unsecured debt securities and the manner in which we conduct our financing programs, have contributed to the favorable trading characteristics of our debt. As a result, we generally have been able to borrow at lower interest rates than other corporate debt issuers. For information on the credit ratings of our long-term and short-term senior unsecured debt, subordinated debt and preferred stock, refer to “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity—Credit Ratings and Risk Ratings.”

Securitization Activities

Our Capital Markets group engages in two principal types of securitization activities:


	•	creating and issuing Fannie Mae MBS from our mortgage portfolio assets, either for sale into the secondary market or to retain in our portfolio; and

	•	issuing structured Fannie Mae MBS for customers in exchange for a transaction fee.

Our Capital Markets group creates Fannie Mae MBS using mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities that we hold in our investment portfolio, referred to as “portfolio securitizations.” We currently securitize a majority of the single-family mortgage loans we purchase within the first month of purchase. Our Capital Markets group may sell these Fannie Mae MBS into the secondary market or may retain the Fannie Mae MBS in our investment portfolio. In addition, the Capital Markets group issues structured Fannie Mae MBS, which are generally created through swap transactions, typically with our lender customers or securities dealer customers. In these transactions, the customer “swaps” a mortgage asset it owns for a structured Fannie Mae MBS we issue. Our Capital Markets group earns transaction fees for issuing structured Fannie Mae MBS for third parties.

Customer Services

Our Capital Markets group provides our lender customers and their affiliates with services that include: offering to purchase a wide variety of mortgage assets, including non-standard mortgage loan products; segregating customer portfolios to obtain optimal pricing for their mortgage loans; and assisting customers with the hedging of their mortgage business. These activities provide a significant flow of assets for our mortgage portfolio, help to create a broader market for our customers and enhance liquidity in the secondary mortgage market.

Risk Management

Our Capital Markets group has responsibility for managing our interest rate risk, liquidity risk and the credit risk of the non-Fannie Mae mortgage-related securities held in our portfolio. For a description of our methods for managing these and other risks to our business, refer to “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Risk Management.”

COMPETITION

Our competitors include the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, referred to as Freddie Mac, the Federal Home Loan Banks, the FHA, financial institutions, securities dealers, insurance companies, pension funds, investment funds and other investors.

We compete to acquire mortgage assets in the secondary market both for our investment portfolio and for securitization into Fannie Mae MBS. Competition for the acquisition of mortgage assets is affected by many factors, including the supply of residential mortgage loans offered for sale in the secondary market by loan originators and other market participants, the current demand for mortgage assets from mortgage investors, and the credit risk and prices associated with available mortgage investments.

We also compete for the issuance of mortgage-related securities to investors. Issuers of mortgage-related securities compete on the basis of the value of their products and services relative to the prices they charge. An issuer can deliver value through the liquidity and trading levels of its securities, the range of products and services it offers, its ability to customize products based on the specific preferences of individual investors, and the reliability and consistency with which it conducts its business. In recent years, there was a significant increase in the issuance of mortgage-related securities by non-agency issuers, which caused a decrease in our share of the market for new issuances of single-family mortgage-related securities from 2003 to 2006. Non-agency issuers, also referred to as private-label issuers, are those issuers of mortgage-related securities other than agency issuers Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Government National Mortgage Association (“Ginnie Mae”). The mortgage and credit market disruption that began in 2007 led many investors to curtail their purchases of private-label mortgage-related securities in favor of mortgage-related securities backed by GSE guaranties. Based on data provided by Inside MBS & ABS, we estimate that issuances of private-label mortgage-related securities declined by 83% from the fourth quarter of 2006 to the fourth quarter of 2007. As a result of these changes in investor demand, our estimated market share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuance increased significantly to approximately 48.5% for the fourth quarter of 2007 from approximately 24.6% for the fourth quarter of 2006. Our estimates of market share are based on publicly available data and exclude previously securitized mortgages.

We also compete for low-cost debt funding with institutions that hold mortgage portfolios, including Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks.

OUR CHARTER AND REGULATION OF OUR ACTIVITIES

We are a stockholder-owned corporation, originally established in 1938, organized and existing under the Federal National Mortgage Association Charter Act, which we refer to as the Charter Act or our charter.

Charter Act

The Charter Act sets forth the activities that we are permitted to conduct, authorizes us to issue debt and equity securities, and describes our general corporate powers. The Charter Act states that our purpose is to:


	•	provide stability in the secondary market for residential mortgages;

	•	respond appropriately to the private capital market;

	•	provide ongoing assistance to the secondary market for residential mortgages (including activities relating to mortgages on housing for low- and moderate-income families involving a reasonable economic return that may be less than the return earned on other activities) by increasing the liquidity of mortgage investments and improving the distribution of investment capital available for residential mortgage financing; and

	•	promote access to mortgage credit throughout the nation (including central cities, rural areas and underserved areas) by increasing the liquidity of mortgage investments and improving the distribution of investment capital available for residential mortgage financing.

In addition to the alignment of our overall strategy with these purposes, all of our business activities must be permissible under the Charter Act. Our charter authorizes us to, among other things, purchase, service, sell, lend on the security of, and otherwise deal in certain mortgage loans; issue debt obligations and mortgage-related securities; and “do all things as are necessary or incidental to the proper management of [our] affairs and the proper conduct of [our] business.”

Loan Standards

Mortgage loans we purchase or securitize must meet the following standards required by the Charter Act.


	•	Principal Balance Limitations. Our charter permits us to purchase and securitize conventional mortgage loans secured by either a single-family or multifamily property. Single-family conventional mortgage loans are generally subject to maximum original principal balance limits. The principal balance limits are often referred to as “conforming loan limits” and are established each year based on the national average price of a one-family residence. OFHEO has set the conforming loan limit for a one-family residence at $417,000 for 2007 and 2008. In February 2008, Congress passed legislation that temporarily increases the conforming loan limit in high-cost metropolitan areas for loans originated between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2008. For a one-family residence, the loan limit increased to 125% of the area’s median house price, up to a maximum of $729,750. Higher original principal balance limits apply to mortgage loans secured by two- to four-family residences and also to loans in Alaska, Hawaii, Guam and the Virgin Islands. No statutory limits apply to the maximum original principal balance of multifamily mortgage loans that we purchase or securitize. In addition, the Charter Act imposes no maximum original principal balance limits on loans we purchase or securitize that are either insured by the FHA or guaranteed by the VA.

	•	Quality Standards. The Charter Act requires that, so far as practicable and in our judgment, the mortgage loans we purchase or securitize must be of a quality, type and class that generally meet the purchase standards of private institutional mortgage investors. To comply with this requirement and to operate our business efficiently, we have eligibility policies and provide guidelines both for the mortgage loans we purchase or securitize and for the sellers and servicers of these loans.

	•	Loan-to-Value and Credit Enhancement Requirements. The Charter Act generally requires credit enhancement on any conventional single-family mortgage loan that we purchase or securitize if it has a loan-to-value ratio over 80% at the time of purchase. We also do not purchase or securitize second lien single-family mortgage loans when the combined loan-to-value ratio exceeds 80%, unless the second lien mortgage loan has credit enhancement in accordance with the requirements of the Charter Act. The credit enhancement required by our charter may take the form of one or more of the following: (i) insurance or a guaranty by a qualified insurer; (ii) a seller’s agreement to repurchase or replace any mortgage loan in default (for such period and under such circumstances as we may require); or (iii) retention by the seller of at least a 10% participation interest in the mortgage loans. We do not adjust the loan-to-value ratio of


		loans bearing credit enhancement to reflect that credit enhancement. Regardless of loan-to-value ratio, the Charter Act does not require us to obtain credit enhancement to acquire two types of loans that are often described as “conventional mortgage loans”: home improvement loans and loans secured by manufactured housing.

Other Charter Act Limitations and Requirements

In addition to specifying our purpose, authorizing our activities and establishing various limitations and requirements relating to the loans we purchase and securitize, the Charter Act has the following provisions.


	•	Issuances of Our Securities. The Charter Act authorizes us, upon approval of the Secretary of the Treasury, to issue debt obligations and mortgage-related securities. At the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury, the Department of the Treasury may purchase obligations of Fannie Mae up to a maximum of $2.25 billion outstanding at any one time. We have not used this facility since our transition from government ownership in 1968. Neither the U.S. government nor any of its agencies guarantees, directly or indirectly, our debt or mortgage-related securities or is obligated to finance our operations or assist us in any other manner.

	•	Exemptions for Our Securities. Securities we issue are “exempted securities” under laws administered by the SEC. As a result, registration statements with respect to offerings of our securities are not filed with the SEC. In March 2003, we voluntarily registered our common stock with the SEC under Section 12(g) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”). As a result, we are required to file periodic and current reports with the SEC, including annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q and current reports on Form 8-K. We are also required to file proxy statements with the SEC. In addition, our directors and certain officers are required to file reports with the SEC relating to their ownership of Fannie Mae equity securities. The voluntary registration of our common stock under Section 12(g) of the Exchange Act does not affect the exempt status of the debt, equity and mortgage-backed securities that we issue.

	•	Exemption from Specified Taxes. Pursuant to the Charter Act, we are exempt from taxation by states, counties, municipalities or local taxing authorities, except for taxation by those authorities on our real property. However, we are not exempt from the payment of federal corporate income taxes.

	•	Other Limitations and Requirements. Under the Charter Act, we may not originate mortgage loans or advance funds to a mortgage seller on an interim basis, using mortgage loans as collateral, pending the sale of the mortgages in the secondary market. In addition, we may only purchase or securitize mortgages on properties located in the United States, including the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories and possessions of the United States.

Regulation and Oversight of Our Activities

As a federally chartered corporation, we are subject to Congressional legislation and oversight and are regulated by HUD and OFHEO. In addition, we are subject to regulation by the Department of the Treasury and by the SEC.

HUD Regulation

Program Approval

HUD has general regulatory authority to promulgate rules and regulations to carry out the purposes of the Charter Act, excluding authority over matters granted exclusively to OFHEO. We are required under the Charter Act to obtain approval of the Secretary of HUD for any new conventional mortgage program that is significantly different from those approved or engaged in prior to the enactment of the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 (the “1992 Act”). The Secretary of HUD must approve any new program unless the Charter Act does not authorize it or the Secretary finds that it is not in the public interest.

Investment Review

HUD periodically conducts reviews of our activities to ensure compliance with the Charter Act and other regulatory requirements. In June 2006, HUD announced that it would conduct a review of our investments and holdings, including certain equity and debt investments classified in our consolidated financial statements as “other assets/other liabilities,” to determine whether our investment activities are consistent with our charter authority. We are fully cooperating with this review. If HUD determines that these investment activities are not permissible under the Charter Act, we could be prevented from continuing some of our current business activities and may be required to modify our investment approach.

Annual Housing Goals and Subgoals

For each calendar year, we are subject to housing goals and subgoals set by HUD. The goals, which are set as a percentage of the total number of dwelling units underlying our total mortgage purchases, are intended to expand housing opportunities (1) for low- and moderate-income families, (2) in HUD-defined underserved areas, including central cities and rural areas, and (3) for low-income families in low-income areas and for very low-income families, which is referred to as “special affordable housing.” In addition, HUD has established three home purchase subgoals that are expressed as percentages of the total number of mortgages we purchase that finance the purchase of single-family, owner-occupied properties located in metropolitan areas, and a subgoal for multifamily special affordable housing that is expressed as a dollar amount. We report our progress toward achieving our housing goals to HUD on a quarterly basis, and we are required to submit a report to HUD and Congress on our performance in meeting our housing goals on an annual basis.

The following table compares our performance against the housing goals and subgoals for 2007, 2006 and 2005. The 2005 and 2006 performance results are final results that have been validated by HUD. The 2007 performance results are preliminary results that we have not finalized and that also have not yet been validated by HUD.

Housing Goals and Subgoals Performance


	2007						2006						2005
	Result⁽¹⁾			Goal			Result⁽¹⁾			Goal			Result⁽¹⁾			Goal

Housing goals:⁽²⁾
Low- and moderate-income housing		55.34	%		55.0	%		56.93	%		53.0	%		55.06	%		52.0	%
Underserved areas		43.41			38.0			43.59			38.0			41.43			37.0
Special affordable housing		26.47			25.0			27.81			23.0			26.28			22.0
Housing subgoals:
Home purchase subgoals:⁽³⁾
Low- and moderate-income housing		42.16			47.0	%		46.93	%		46.0	%		44.59	%		45.0	%
Underserved areas		33.46			33.0			34.49			33.0			32.56			32.0
Special affordable housing		15.46			18.0			17.95			17.0			17.03			17.0
Multifamily special affordable housing subgoal ($ in billions)⁽⁴⁾	$	19.85		$	5.49		$	13.31		$	5.49		$	10.39		$	5.49


⁽¹⁾		Results presented for 2007 are preliminary and reflect our best estimates as of the date of this report. These results may differ from the results we report in our Annual Housing Activities Report for 2007. In addition, HUD has not yet determined our results for 2007. The source of our 2006 and 2005 results is HUD’s analysis of data we submitted to HUD. Some results differ from the results we reported in our Annual Housing Activities Reports for 2006 and 2005.

⁽²⁾		Goals are expressed as a percentage of the total number of dwelling units financed by eligible mortgage loan purchases during the period.

⁽³⁾		Home purchase subgoals measure our performance by the number of loans (not dwelling units) providing purchase money for owner-occupied single-family housing in metropolitan areas.

⁽⁴⁾		The multifamily subgoal is measured by loan amount and expressed as a dollar amount.

As shown by the table above, in 2005, we met each of our three housing goals and three of the four subgoals, but fell slightly short of the “low- and moderate-income housing” home purchase subgoal. We met all of our housing goals and subgoals in 2006.

In 2007, we believe that we met each of our three housing goals, as well as the “underserved areas” home purchase subgoal and “multifamily special affordable housing” subgoal. However, based on our preliminary calculations, we believe that we did not meet our “low- and moderate-income housing” and “special affordable housing” home purchase subgoals. We expect to submit our 2007 Annual Housing Activities Report to HUD in March 2008, and HUD will make the final determination regarding our housing goals performance for 2007.

Declining market conditions and the increased goal levels in 2007 made meeting our housing goals and subgoals even more challenging than in previous years. Challenges to meeting our housing goals and subgoals in 2007 included deteriorating conditions in the mortgage credit markets and reduced housing affordability. Housing affordability has declined significantly in the past several years, due to previous increases in home prices, increases in interest rates from previous historically low levels and reduced income growth rates. The credit tightening that began in the second half of 2007 also contributed to reduced affordability. These difficult market conditions negatively impacted market opportunities to purchase mortgages that satisfied the subgoal requirements. We expect these market conditions to continue to affect our ability to meet our housing goals and subgoals in 2008. Moreover, all of the housing goals and one of the housing subgoals have increased for 2008.

The housing goals are subject to enforcement by the Secretary of HUD. The subgoals, however, are treated differently. Pursuant to the 1992 Act, the “low- and moderate-income housing” and “underserved areas” home purchase subgoals are not enforceable by HUD. However, HUD has taken the position that the “special affordable housing” and “multifamily special affordable housing” subgoals are enforceable. If our efforts to meet the housing goals and special affordable housing subgoals prove to be insufficient, we may become subject to a housing plan that could require us to take additional steps that could have an adverse effect on our profitability. HUD’s regulations state that HUD shall require us to submit a housing plan if we fail to meet one or more housing goals and HUD determines that achievement was feasible, taking into account market and economic conditions and our financial condition. The housing plan must describe the actions we will take to meet the goal in the next calendar year. If HUD determines that we have failed to submit a housing plan or to make a good faith effort to comply with the plan, HUD has the right to take certain administrative actions. The potential penalties for failure to comply with the housing plan requirements are a cease-and-desist order and civil money penalties.

There is no penalty for failing to meet the “low- and moderate-income housing” home purchase subgoal, because it is not enforceable. However, if HUD determines that achievement of the “special affordable housing” home purchase subgoal was feasible in 2007, we may become subject to a housing plan as described above.

See “Item 1A—Risk Factors” for a description of how changes we have made to our business strategies in order to meet HUD’s housing goals and subgoals have increased our credit losses and may reduce our profitability.

OFHEO Regulation

OFHEO is an independent office within HUD that is responsible for ensuring that we are adequately capitalized and operating safely in accordance with the 1992 Act. OFHEO has agency examination authority, and we are required to submit to OFHEO annual and quarterly reports on our financial condition and results of operations. OFHEO is authorized to levy annual assessments on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, to the extent authorized by Congress, to cover OFHEO’s reasonable expenses. OFHEO’s formal enforcement powers include the power to impose temporary and final cease-and-desist orders and civil monetary penalties on the company and our directors and executive officers.

OFHEO Consent Order

In 2003, OFHEO began a special examination of our accounting policies and practices, internal controls, financial reporting, corporate governance, and other matters. In May 2006, concurrently with OFHEO’s release of its final report of the special examination, we agreed to OFHEO’s issuance of a consent order that resolved

open matters relating to their investigation of us. Under the consent order, we neither admitted nor denied any wrongdoing and agreed to make changes and take actions in specified areas, including our accounting practices, capital levels and activities, corporate governance, Board of Directors, internal controls, public disclosures, regulatory reporting, personnel and compensation practices.

In the OFHEO consent order, we agreed to the following additional restrictions relating to our capital activity:


	•	We must maintain a 30% capital surplus over our statutory minimum capital requirement until such time as the Director of OFHEO determines that the requirement should be modified or allowed to expire, taking into account factors such as the resolution of accounting and internal control issues. For a description of our statutory minimum capital requirement and OFHEO-directed minimum capital requirement, see “Capital Adequacy Requirements.”

	•	We must seek the approval of the Director of OFHEO before engaging in any transaction that could have the effect of reducing our capital surplus below an amount equal to 30% more than our statutory minimum capital requirement.

	•	We must submit a written report to OFHEO detailing the rationale and process for any proposed capital distribution before making such distribution.

	•	We are not permitted to increase the amount of our mortgage portfolio assets above a specified amount, except in limited circumstances at the discretion of OFHEO.

Under the OFHEO consent order, we were initially restricted from increasing our net mortgage portfolio assets above $727.75 billion. In September 2007, OFHEO issued an interpretation of the consent order revising the mortgage portfolio cap so that it is no longer based on the amount of our “net mortgage portfolio assets,” which reflects adjustments under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”). The mortgage portfolio cap is now compared to our “average monthly mortgage portfolio balance.” Our “average monthly mortgage portfolio balance” is the cumulative average of the month-end unpaid principal balances of our mortgage portfolio (as defined and reported in our Monthly Summary Report, a monthly statistical report on our business activity, which we file with the SEC in a current report on Form 8-K) for the previous 12-month period. Through June 2008, however, the reporting period will begin with and include July 2007 and end with the month covered by the current Monthly Summary Report. This measure is a statistical measure rather than an amount computed in accordance with GAAP, and excludes both consolidated mortgage-related assets acquired through the assumption of debt and the impact on the unpaid principal balances recorded on our purchases of seriously delinquent loans from MBS trusts pursuant to Statement of Position No. 03-3, Accounting for Certain Loans or Debt Securities Acquired in a Transfer. For purposes of this calculation, OFHEO’s interpretation sets the July 2007 month-end portfolio balance at $725 billion. In addition, any net increase in delinquent loan balances in our portfolio after September 30, 2007 will be excluded from the month-end portfolio balance.

The mortgage portfolio cap was set at $735 billion for the third quarter of 2007 and $742.35 billion for the fourth quarter of 2007. For each subsequent quarter, the mortgage portfolio cap increases by 0.5%, not to exceed 2% per year. The mortgage portfolio cap is currently set at $746 billion for the first quarter of 2008. Our “average monthly mortgage portfolio balance” as of December 31, 2007 was $725.3 billion, which was $17.1 billion below our applicable portfolio limit of $742.35 billion.

In its Fiscal Year 2007 Performance and Accountability Report, released November 15, 2007, OFHEO recognized that we had complied with 88% of the requirements of the OFHEO consent order. With the filing of this Form 10-K, we believe that we are in compliance with all 81 requirements of the OFHEO consent order.

Capital Adequacy Requirements

We are subject to capital adequacy requirements established by the 1992 Act. The statutory capital framework incorporates two different quantitative assessments of capital—a minimum capital requirement and a risk-based capital requirement. The minimum capital requirement is ratio-based, while the risk-based capital

requirement is based on simulated stress test performance. The 1992 Act requires us to maintain sufficient capital to meet both of these requirements in order to be classified as “adequately capitalized.”

OFHEO is permitted or required to take remedial action if we fail to meet our capital requirements, depending upon which requirement we fail to meet. If OFHEO classifies us as significantly undercapitalized, we would be required to submit a capital restoration plan and would be subject to additional restrictions on our ability to make capital distributions. OFHEO has the ability to take additional supervisory actions if the Director determines that we have failed to make reasonable efforts to comply with that plan or are engaging in unapproved conduct that could result in a rapid depletion of our core capital, or if the value of the property securing mortgage loans we hold or have securitized has decreased significantly. The 1992 Act also gives OFHEO the authority, after following prescribed procedures, to appoint a conservator. Under OFHEO’s regulations, appointment of a conservator is mandatory, with limited exceptions, if we are critically undercapitalized. OFHEO has discretion under its rules to appoint a conservator if we are significantly undercapitalized and alternative remedies are unavailable. The 1992 Act and OFHEO’s rules also specify other grounds for appointing a conservator.

Statutory Minimum Capital Requirement and OFHEO-directed Minimum Capital Requirement. OFHEO’s ratio-based minimum capital standard ties our capital requirements to the size of our book of business. For purposes of the statutory minimum capital requirement, we are in compliance if our core capital equals or exceeds our statutory minimum capital requirement. Core capital is defined by statute as the sum of the stated value of outstanding common stock (common stock less treasury stock), the stated value of outstanding non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock, paid-in capital and retained earnings, as determined in accordance with GAAP. Our statutory minimum capital requirement is generally equal to the sum of:


	•	2.50% of on-balance sheet assets;

	•	0.45% of the unpaid principal balance of outstanding Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties; and

	•	up to 0.45% of other off-balance sheet obligations, which may be adjusted by the Director of OFHEO under certain circumstances.

Our consent order with OFHEO requires us to maintain a 30% capital surplus over our statutory minimum capital requirement. We refer to this requirement as the “OFHEO-directed minimum capital requirement.” Each quarter, as part of its capital classification announcement, OFHEO publishes our standing relative to the statutory minimum capital requirement and the OFHEO-directed minimum capital requirement. For a description of the amounts by which our core capital exceeded our statutory minimum capital requirement and OFHEO-directed minimum capital requirement as of December 31, 2007 and December 31, 2006, see “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management—Capital Management—Capital Classification Measures.”

Statutory Risk-Based Capital Requirement. OFHEO’s risk-based capital requirement ties our capital requirements to the risk in our book of business, as measured by a stress test model. The stress test simulates our financial performance over a ten-year period of severe economic conditions characterized by both extreme interest rate movements and high mortgage default rates. Simulation results indicate the amount of capital required to survive this prolonged period of economic stress without new business or active risk management action. In addition to this model-based amount, the risk-based capital requirement includes a 30% surcharge to cover unspecified management and operations risks.

Our total capital base is used to meet our risk-based capital requirement. Total capital is defined by statute as the sum of our core capital plus the total allowance for loan losses and reserve for guaranty losses in connection with Fannie Mae MBS, less the specific loss allowance (that is, the allowance required on individually-impaired loans). Each quarter, OFHEO runs a detailed profile of our book of business through the stress test simulation model. The model generates cash flows and financial statements to evaluate our risk and measure our capital adequacy during the ten-year stress horizon. As part of its quarterly capital classification announcement, OFHEO makes these stress test results publicly available. For a description of the amounts by which our total capital exceeded our statutory risk-based capital requirement as of December 31, 2007 and

2006, see “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management—Capital Management—Capital Classification Measures.”

In October 2007, OFHEO announced a proposed rule that would change the mortgage loan loss severity formulas used in the regulatory risk-based capital stress test. If adopted, the proposed changes would increase our risk-based capital requirement. Using data from the third and fourth quarters of 2006, OFHEO’s recalculation of the risk-based capital requirement for those periods using the proposed formulas showed that our total capital base would continue to exceed the revised risk-based capital requirements.

Statutory Critical Capital Requirement. Our critical capital requirement is the amount of core capital below which we would be classified as critically undercapitalized and generally would be required to be placed in conservatorship. Our critical capital requirement is generally equal to the sum of:


	•	1.25% of on-balance sheet assets;

	•	0.25% of the unpaid principal balance of outstanding Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties; and

	•	up to 0.25% of other off-balance sheet obligations, which may be adjusted by the Director of OFHEO under certain circumstances.

For a description of the amounts by which our core capital exceeded our statutory critical capital requirement as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, see “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management—Capital Management—Capital Classification Measures.”

OFHEO Direction on Interagency Guidance on Nontraditional Mortgages and Subprime Lending

In September 2006 and June 2007, five federal financial regulatory agencies jointly issued guidance on risks posed by nontraditional mortgage products (that is, mortgage products that allow borrowers to defer repayment of principal or interest) and by subprime mortgages. The interagency guidance directed regulated financial institutions that originate nontraditional and subprime mortgage loans to follow prudent lending practices, including following safe and sound underwriting practices and providing borrowers with clear and balanced information about the relative benefits and risks of these products sufficiently early in the process to enable them to make informed decisions. OFHEO directed us to apply the risk management, underwriting and consumer protection principles of the interagency guidance to the mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities that we acquire for our portfolio and for securitization into Fannie Mae MBS. Accordingly, we have made changes to our underwriting standards implementing the interagency guidance.

Recent Legislative Developments and Possible Changes in Our Regulations and Oversight

In February 2008, Congress passed legislation that temporarily increases the conforming loan limit in high-cost metropolitan areas for loans originated between July 1, 2007 and December 31, 2008. For a one-family residence, the loan limit increased to 125% of the area’s median house price, up to a maximum of 175% of the otherwise applicable loan limit. The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association has initially determined that mortgage-related securities backed by these “jumbo conforming” loans are not eligible to be traded in the TBA market. The TBA, or “to be announced,” securities market is a forward, or delayed delivery, market for mortgage-related securities backed by 30-year and 15-year single-family mortgage loans issued by us and other agency issuers. Most of our single-class, single-family Fannie Mae MBS are sold by lenders in the TBA market. Accordingly, the inability of mortgage-related securities backed by jumbo conforming mortgages to trade in this market may limit the liquidity of these securities and make the execution less favorable. In addition, we will be required to implement changes to our systems in order to be able to acquire and securitize jumbo conforming loans, particularly due to the variation in the conforming loan limit by metropolitan statistical area.

There is legislation pending before the U.S. Congress that would change the regulatory framework under which we, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks operate. On May 22, 2007, the House of Representatives approved a bill that would establish a new, independent regulator for us and the other GSEs, with broad authority over both safety and soundness and mission.

As of the date of this filing, one GSE reform bill has been introduced in the Senate and another is expected. For a description of how the changes in the regulation of our business contemplated by these GSE reform bills and other legislative proposals could materially adversely affect our business and earnings, see “Item 1A—Risk Factors.”

EXECUTIVE OFFICERS

Our current executive officers are listed below. They have provided the following information about their principal occupation, business experience and other matters.

Daniel H. Mudd, 49, has served as President and Chief Executive Officer of Fannie Mae since June 2005. Mr. Mudd previously served as Vice Chairman of Fannie Mae’s Board of Directors and interim Chief Executive Officer, from December 2004 to June 2005, and as Vice Chairman and Chief Operating Officer from February 2000 to December 2004. Prior to his employment with Fannie Mae, Mr. Mudd was President and Chief Executive Officer of GE Capital, Japan, a diversified financial services company and a wholly-owned subsidiary of the General Electric Company, from April 1999 to February 2000. He also served as President of GE Capital, Asia Pacific, from May 1996 to June 1999. Mr. Mudd has served as a director of the Fannie Mae Foundation since March 2000, serving as Chairman since June 2005, interim Chairman from December 2004 to June 2005, and Vice Chairman from September 2003 to December 2004. Mr. Mudd serves as a director of Fortress Investment Group LLC. Mr. Mudd has been a Fannie Mae director since February 2000.

Kenneth J. Bacon, 53, has been Executive Vice President—Housing and Community Development since July 2005. He was interim head of Housing and Community Development from January 2005 to July 2005. He was Senior Vice President—Multifamily Lending and Investment from May 2000 to January 2005, and Senior Vice President—American Communities Fund from October 1999 to May 2000. From August 1998 to October 1999 he was Senior Vice President of the Community Development Capital Corporation. He was Senior Vice President of Fannie Mae’s Northeastern Regional Office in Philadelphia from May 1993 to August 1998. Mr. Bacon has served as a director of the Fannie Mae Foundation since January 1995 and as Vice Chairman since January 2005. Mr. Bacon is also a director of Comcast Corporation and the Corporation for Supportive Housing. He is a member of the Executive Leadership Council and the Real Estate Round Table.

Enrico Dallavecchia, 46, has been Executive Vice President and Chief Risk Officer since June 2006. Prior to joining Fannie Mae, Mr. Dallavecchia was with JP Morgan Chase, where he served as Head of Market Risk for Retail Financial Services, Chief Investment Office and Asset Wealth Management from April 2005 to May 2006 and as Market Risk Officer for Global Treasury, Retail Financial Services, Credit Cards and Proprietary Positioning Division and Co-head of Market Risk Technology from December 1998 to March 2005.

Linda K. Knight, 58, has been Executive Vice President—Enterprise Operations since April 2007. Prior to her present appointment, Ms. Knight served as Executive Vice President—Capital Markets from March 2006 to April 2007. Before that, Ms. Knight served as Senior Vice President and Treasurer from February 1993 to March 2006, and Vice President and Assistant Treasurer from November 1986 to February 1993. Ms. Knight held the position of Director, Treasurer’s Office from November 1984 to November 1986, and Assistant Director, Treasurer’s Office from February 1984 to November 1984. Ms. Knight joined Fannie Mae in August 1982 as a senior market analyst.

Robert J. Levin, 52, has been Executive Vice President and Chief Business Officer since November 2005. Mr. Levin was Fannie Mae’s interim Chief Financial Officer from December 2004 to January 2006. Prior to that position, Mr. Levin was the Executive Vice President of Housing and Community Development from June 1998 to December 2004. From June 1990 to June 1998, he was Executive Vice President—Marketing. Mr. Levin joined Fannie Mae in 1981. Mr. Levin has previously served as a director and as treasurer of the Fannie Mae Foundation.

Thomas A. Lund, 49, has been Executive Vice President—Single-Family Mortgage Business since July 2005. He was interim head of Single-Family Mortgage Business from January 2005 to July 2005 and Senior Vice President—Chief Acquisitions Office from January 2004 to January 2005. Mr. Lund served as Senior Vice President—Investor Channel from August 2000 to January 2004, Senior Vice President—Southwestern

Regional Office, Dallas, Texas from July 1996 to July 2000, and Vice President for marketing from January 1995 to July 1996.

Rahul N. Merchant, 51, has been Executive Vice President and Chief Information Officer since November 2006. Prior to joining Fannie Mae, Mr. Merchant was with Merrill Lynch & Co., where he served as Head of Technology from 2004 to 2006 and as Head of Global Business Technology for Merrill Lynch’s Global Markets and Investment Banking division from 2000 to 2004. Before joining Merrill, he served as Executive Vice President at Dresdner, Kleinwort and Benson, a global investment bank, from 1998 to 2000. He also previously served as Senior Vice President at Sanwa Financial Products and First Vice President at Lehman Brothers, Inc. Mr. Merchant serves on the board of advisors of the American India Foundation.

Peter S. Niculescu, 48, has been Executive Vice President—Capital Markets (previously Mortgage Portfolio) since November 2002. Mr. Niculescu joined Fannie Mae in March 1999 as Senior Vice President—Portfolio Strategy and served in that position until November 2002.

William B. Senhauser, 45, has been Senior Vice President and Chief Compliance Officer since December 2005. Prior to his present appointment, Mr. Senhauser was Vice President for Regulatory Agreements and Restatement from October 2004 to December 2005, Vice President for Operating Initiatives from January 2003 to September 2004, and Vice President, Deputy General Counsel from November 2000 to January 2003. Mr. Senhauser joined Fannie Mae in 2000 as Vice President for Fair Lending.

Stephen M. Swad, 46, has been Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer since August 2007. Mr. Swad previously served as Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Designate from May 2007 to August 2007. Prior to joining Fannie Mae, Mr. Swad was Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer at AOL, LLC, from February 2003 to February 2007. Before joining AOL, Mr. Swad served as Executive Vice President of Finance and Administration at Turner Broadcasting System Inc.’s Turner Entertainment Group, from April 2002 to February 2003. From 1998 through 2002, he was with Time Warner, where he served in various corporate finance roles. Mr. Swad also previously served as a partner in KPMG’s national office and as the Deputy Chief Accountant at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission.

Beth A. Wilkinson, 45, has been Executive Vice President—General Counsel and Corporate Secretary since February 2006. Prior to joining Fannie Mae, Ms. Wilkinson was a partner and Co-Chair, White Collar Practice Group at Latham & Watkins LLP, from 1998 to 2006. Before joining Latham, she served at the Department of Justice as a prosecutor and special counsel for U.S. v. McVeigh and Nichols from 1996 to 1998. During her tenure at the Department of Justice, Ms. Wilkinson was appointed principal deputy of the Terrorism & Violent Crime Section in 1995, and served as Special Counsel to the Deputy Attorney General from 1995 to 1996. Ms. Wilkinson also served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York from 1991 to 1995. Prior to that time, Ms. Wilkinson was a Captain in the U.S. Army serving as an assistant to the general counsel of the Army for Intelligence & Special Operations from 1987 to 1991. Ms. Wilkinson serves on the board of directors of Equal Justice Works.

Michael J. Williams, 50, has been Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer since November 2005. Mr. Williams was Fannie Mae’s Executive Vice President for Regulatory Agreements and Restatement from February 2005 to November 2005. Mr. Williams also served as President—Fannie Mae eBusiness from July 2000 to February 2005 and as Senior Vice President—e-commerce from July 1999 to July 2000. Prior to this, Mr. Williams served in various roles in the Single-Family and Corporate Information Systems divisions of the company. Mr. Williams joined Fannie Mae in 1991.

EMPLOYEES

As of December 31, 2007, we employed approximately 5,700 personnel, including full-time and part-time employees, term employees and employees on leave.

WHERE YOU CAN FIND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

SEC Reports

We file reports, proxy statements and other information with the SEC. We make available free of charge through our Web site our annual reports on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K and all other SEC reports and amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file the material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Our Web site address is www.fanniemae.com. Materials that we file with the SEC are also available from the SEC’s Web site, www.sec.gov. In addition, these materials may be inspected, without charge, and copies may be obtained at prescribed rates, at the SEC’s Public Reference Room at 100 F Street, NE, Room 1580, Washington, DC 20549. You may obtain information on the operation of the Public Reference Room by calling the SEC at 1-800-SEC-0330. You may also request copies of any filing from us, at no cost, by telephone at (202) 752-7000 or by mail at 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20016.

Information about Certain Securities Issuances by Fannie Mae

Pursuant to SEC regulations, public companies are required to disclose certain information when they incur a material direct financial obligation or become directly or contingently liable for a material obligation under an off-balance sheet arrangement. The disclosure must be made on a current report on Form 8-K under Item 2.03 or, if the obligation is incurred in connection with certain types of securities offerings, in prospectuses for that offering that are filed with the SEC.

Fannie Mae’s securities offerings are exempted from SEC registration requirements. As a result, we are not required to and do not file registration statements or prospectuses with the SEC with respect to our securities offerings. To comply with the disclosure requirements of Form 8-K relating to the incurrence of material financial obligations, we report our incurrence of these types of material obligations either in offering circulars or prospectuses (or supplements thereto) that we post on our Web site or in a current report on Form 8-K, in accordance with a “no-action” letter we received from the SEC Staff. In cases where the information is disclosed in a prospectus or offering circular posted on our Web site, the document will be posted on our Web site within the same time period that a prospectus for a non-exempt securities offering would be required to be filed with the SEC.

The Web site address for disclosure about our debt securities is www.fanniemae.com/debtsearch. From this address, investors can access the offering circular and related supplements for debt securities offerings under Fannie Mae’s universal debt facility, including pricing supplements for individual issuances of debt securities.

Disclosure about our off-balance sheet obligations pursuant to some of the MBS we issue can be found at www.fanniemae.com/mbsdisclosure. From this address, investors can access information and documents about our MBS, including prospectuses and related prospectus supplements.

We are providing our Web site addresses and the Web site address of the SEC solely for your information. Information appearing on our Web site or on the SEC’s Web site is not incorporated into this annual report on Form 10-K.

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This report contains forward-looking statements, which are statements about matters that are not historical facts. In addition, our senior management may from time to time make forward-looking statements orally to analysts, investors, the news media and others. Forward-looking statements often include words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “intends,” “plans,” “believes,” “seeks,” “estimates,” “would,” “should,” “could,” “may,” or similar words.

Among the forward-looking statements in this report are statements relating to:


	•	our expectations regarding the future of the housing and mortgage markets, including our expectation of continued housing market weakness in 2008 and our expectations relating to declines in home prices and slower growth in mortgage debt outstanding in 2008;

	•	our expectations regarding our housing goals and subgoals performance;


	•	our expectations that our single-family guaranty book of business will grow at a faster rate than the rate of overall growth in U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding, and our guaranty fee income will continue to increase during 2008;

	•	our expectation that the fair value of our net assets will decline in 2008 from the estimated fair value of $35.8 billion as of December 31, 2007;

	•	our belief that we will collect all original contractual principal and interest payments on the substantial majority of our cured loans;

	•	our belief that our change in practice to decrease the number of optional delinquent loan purchases from our single-family MBS trusts will not materially affect our reserve for guaranty losses;

	•	our expectation that our credit-related expenses and credit losses will continue to increase in 2008;

	•	our expectation that our actual future credit losses will be significantly less than the fair value of our guaranty obligations;

	•	our expectation that the substantial majority of our MBS guaranty transactions will generate positive economic returns over the lives of the related MBS because, based on our experience, we expect our guaranty fees to exceed our incurred credit losses;

	•	our expectation of continued volatility in our results of operations and financial condition;

	•	our expectation that, based on the composition of our derivatives, we will experience derivatives losses and decreases in the aggregate estimated fair value of our derivatives when interest rates decline;

	•	our expectation that changes in the fair value of our trading securities will generally move inversely to changes in the fair value of our derivatives;

	•	our expectation that we may sell LIHTC investments in the future if we believe that the economic return from the sale will be greater than the benefit we would receive from continuing to hold these investments;

	•	our expectation that we will use our remaining tax credits generated by our investments in housing tax credit partnerships to reduce our federal income tax liability in future years, and our expectation that our effective tax rate will continue to vary significantly from our 35% statutory rate;

	•	our belief that our delinquencies and foreclosures will increase in 2008;

	•	our belief that market conditions will offer us opportunities in 2008 to build a stronger competitive position within our market;

	•	our belief that our sources of liquidity will remain adequate to meet both our short-term and long-term funding needs;

	•	our estimated capital classification measures;

	•	our belief that we will maintain a sufficient amount of core capital to continue to meet our statutory and OFHEO-directed minimum capital requirements through 2008;

	•	our expectation that housing, mortgage and credit market conditions will continue to negatively affect our earnings and the amount of our core capital in 2008;

	•	our expectation that we may take one or more of the following actions to meet our regulatory capital requirements if the current challenging market conditions are significantly worse than anticipated in 2008: reducing the size of our investment portfolio through liquidations or by selling assets; issuing preferred, convertible preferred or common stock; reducing or eliminating our common stock dividend; forgoing purchase and guaranty opportunities; and changing our current business practices to reduce our losses and expenses;

	•	our belief that we would be able to issue preferred securities in the future if necessary;

	•	our estimate of the effect of hypothetical declines in home prices on our credit losses; and

	•	our estimate of the effect of hypothetical changes in interest rates on the fair value of our financial instruments.

Forward-looking statements reflect our management’s expectations or predictions of future conditions, events or results based on various assumptions and management’s estimates of trends and economic factors in the markets in which we are active, as well as our business plans. They are not guarantees of future performance. By their nature, forward-looking statements are subject to risks and uncertainties. Our actual results and financial condition may differ, possibly materially, from the anticipated results and financial condition indicated in these forward-looking statements. There are a number of factors that could cause actual conditions, events or results to differ materially from those described in the forward-looking statements contained in this report, including those factors described in “Item 1A—Risk Factors” of this report.

Readers are cautioned to place forward-looking statements in this report or that we make from time to time into proper context by carefully considering the factors discussed in “Item 1A—Risk Factors” in evaluating these forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are representative only as of the date they are made, and we undertake no obligation to update any forward-looking statement as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as required under the federal securities laws.


Item 1A.	Risk Factors

This section identifies specific risks that should be considered carefully in evaluating our business. The risks described in “Company Risks” are specific to us and our business, while those described in “Risks Relating to Our Industry” relate to the industry in which we operate. Any of these risks could adversely affect our business, earnings, cash flows or financial condition. We believe that these risks represent the material risks relevant to us, our business and our industry, but new material risks to our business may emerge that we are currently unable to predict. The risks discussed below could cause our actual results to differ materially from our historical results or the results contemplated by the forward-looking statements contained in this report. Refer to “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Risk Management” for a more detailed description of the primary risks to our business and how we seek to manage those risks.

COMPANY RISKS

Increased delinquencies and credit losses relating to the mortgage assets that we own or that back our guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS continue to adversely affect our earnings, financial condition and capital position.

We are exposed to credit risk relating to both the mortgage assets that we hold in our investment portfolio and the mortgage assets that back our guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS. Borrowers of mortgage loans that we own or that back our guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS may fail to make required payments of principal and interest on those loans, exposing us to the risk of credit losses.

We have experienced increased mortgage loan delinquencies and credit losses, which had a material adverse effect on our earnings, financial condition and capital position in 2007. Weak economic conditions in the Midwest and home price declines on a national basis, particularly in Florida, California, Nevada and Arizona, increased our single-family serious delinquency rate and contributed to higher default rates and loan loss severities in 2007. We are experiencing high serious delinquency rates and credit losses across our conventional single-family mortgage credit book of business, especially for loans to borrowers with low credit scores and loans with high loan-to-value (“LTV”) ratios. In addition, in 2007 we experienced particularly rapid increases in serious delinquency rates and credit losses in some higher risk loan categories, such as Alt-A loans, adjustable-rate loans, interest-only loans, negative amortization loans, loans made for the purchase of condominiums and loans with second liens. Many of these higher risk loans were originated in 2006 and the first half of 2007. Refer to “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Mortgage Credit Risk Management” for the percentage that each of these loan categories represents of our total conventional single-family mortgage credit book of business.

We expect these trends to continue and that we will experience increased delinquencies and credit losses in 2008 as compared with 2007. The amount by which delinquencies and credit losses will increase in 2008 will depend on a variety of factors, including the extent of national and regional declines in home prices, interest rates and employment rates. In particular, we expect that the onset of a recession, either in the United States

as a whole or in specific regions of the country, would significantly increase the level of our delinquencies and credit losses. Increases in our credit-related expenses would reduce our earnings and adversely affect our capital position and financial condition.

We may experience further write-downs and losses relating to our investment securities due to volatile and illiquid market conditions, which could adversely affect our earnings, liquidity, capital position and financial condition.

During 2007, we experienced an increase in losses on trading securities and in unrealized losses on available-for-sale securities due to a significant widening of credit spreads. Our net losses on trading securities totaled $365 million in 2007. In addition, we recorded $814 million in other-than-temporary impairment on available-for-sale securities in 2007. Of this amount, $160 million related to other-than-temporary impairment on our investments in subprime private-label securities. We also recorded in accumulated other comprehensive income (“AOCI”) an additional $3.3 billion in unrealized losses on Alt-A and subprime private-label securities classified as available-for-sale. We have not recognized other-than-temporary impairment with respect to these securities because we believe it is probable we will collect all of the contractual amounts due and we currently have the intent and ability to hold these securities until they recover their value or until maturity. As market conditions continue to evolve, however, the fair value of these securities could decline further. The credit ratings of some of the subprime and Alt-A private-label securities held in our portfolio have been downgraded or placed under review for possible downgrade in recent months. Mortgage loan delinquencies and credit losses have also increased in recent months, particularly in the subprime and Alt-A sectors. If, in the future, we determine that additional subprime and Alt-A private-label securities classified as available-for-sale and in unrealized loss positions have become other-than-temporarily impaired, or if we change our investment intent with respect to these securities and no longer expect to hold the securities until they recover their value or until maturity, we would experience further significant losses or other-than-temporary impairment relating to these securities. See “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Consolidated Balance Sheet Analysis—Investments in Alt-A and Subprime Mortgage-Related Securities” for more detailed information on our investments in private-label securities backed by subprime and Alt-A loans.

The significant widening of credit spreads that has occurred since July 2007 also could further reduce the fair value of our other investment securities, particularly those securities that are less liquid and more subject to volatility, such as commercial mortgage-backed securities and mortgage revenue bonds. As a result, we also could experience further significant losses or other-than-temporary impairment on other investment securities in our mortgage portfolio or our liquid investment portfolio.

In addition, market illiquidity has increased the amount of management judgment required to value certain of our securities. Subsequent valuations, in light of factors then prevailing, may result in significant changes in the value of our investment securities in the future. If we decide to sell any of these securities, the price we ultimately realize will depend on the demand and liquidity in the market at that time and may be materially lower than their current fair value. Any of these factors could require us to take further write-downs in the value of our investment portfolio, which would have an adverse effect on our earnings, liquidity, capital position and financial condition in the future.

Continued declines in our earnings would have a negative effect on our regulatory capital position.

We are required to meet various capital standards, including a requirement that our core capital equal or exceed both our statutory minimum capital requirement and a higher OFHEO-directed minimum capital requirement. Our retained earnings are a component of our core capital. Accordingly, the level of our core capital can fluctuate significantly depending on our financial results. We recorded a net loss of $2.1 billion in 2007. We expect some or all of the market conditions that contributed to this loss to continue and therefore to continue to adversely affect our earnings and, as a result, the amount of our core capital. In order to continue to meet our statutory and OFHEO-directed minimum capital requirements, we may be required to take actions, or refrain from taking actions, to ensure that we maintain or increase our core capital. These actions have included, and in the future may include, reducing the size of our investment portfolio through liquidations or by selling assets at a time when we believe that it would be economically advantageous to continue to hold

the assets, limiting or forgoing attractive opportunities to acquire or securitize assets, reducing or eliminating our common stock dividend, and issuing additional preferred equity securities, which in general is a more expensive method of funding our operations than issuing debt securities. We also may issue convertible preferred securities or additional shares of common stock to maintain or increase our core capital, which we expect would dilute the investment in the company of the existing holders of our common stock. These actions also may reduce our future earnings.

We depend on our institutional counterparties to provide services that are critical to our business. If one or more of our institutional counterparties defaults on its obligations to us or becomes insolvent, it could materially adversely affect our earnings, liquidity, capital position and financial condition.

We face the risk that one or more of our institutional counterparties may fail to fulfill their contractual obligations to us. Our primary exposures to institutional counterparty risk are with: mortgage servicers that service the loans we hold in our investment portfolio or that back our Fannie Mae MBS; third-party providers of credit enhancement on the mortgage assets that we hold in our investment portfolio or that back our Fannie Mae MBS, including mortgage insurers, lenders with risk sharing arrangements, and financial guarantors; custodial depository institutions that hold principal and interest payments for Fannie Mae MBS certificateholders; issuers of securities held in our liquid investment portfolio; and derivatives counterparties. Refer to “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk Management” for a detailed description of the risk posed by each of these types of counterparties.

The challenging mortgage and credit market conditions have adversely affected, and will likely continue to adversely affect, the liquidity and financial condition of a number of our institutional counterparties, particularly those whose businesses are concentrated in the mortgage industry. One or more of these institutions may default in its obligations to us for a number of reasons, such as changes in financial condition that affect their credit ratings, a reduction in liquidity, operational failures or insolvency. Several of our institutional counterparties have experienced ratings downgrades and liquidity constraints, including Countrywide Financial Corporation and its affiliates, which is our largest lender customer and mortgage servicer. These and other key institutional counterparties may become subject to serious liquidity problems that, either temporarily or permanently, negatively affect the viability of their business plans or reduce their access to funding sources. The financial difficulties that a number of our institutional counterparties are currently experiencing may negatively affect the ability of these counterparties to meet their obligations to us and the amount or quality of the products or services they provide to us. A default by a counterparty with significant obligations to us could result in significant financial losses to us and could materially adversely affect our ability to conduct our operations, which would adversely affect our earnings, liquidity, capital position and financial condition.

Our business with many of our institutional counterparties is heavily concentrated, which increases the risk that we could experience significant losses if one or more of our institutional counterparties defaults in its obligations to us or becomes insolvent.

Our business with our lender customers, mortgage servicers, mortgage insurers, financial guarantors, custodial depository institutions and derivatives counterparties is heavily concentrated. For example, ten single-family mortgage servicers serviced 74% of our single-family mortgage credit book of business as of December 31, 2007. In addition, Countrywide Financial Corporation and its affiliates, our largest single-family mortgage servicer, serviced 23% of our single-family mortgage credit book of business as of December 31, 2007. Also, seven mortgage insurance companies provided over 99% of our total mortgage insurance coverage of $104.1 billion as of December 31, 2007, and our ten largest custodial depository institutions held 89% of our $32.5 billion in deposits for scheduled MBS payments in December 2007.

Moreover, many of our counterparties provide several types of services to us. For example, many of our lender customers or their affiliates also act as mortgage servicers, custodial depository institutions and document custodians for us. Accordingly, if one of these counterparties were to become insolvent or otherwise default on its obligations to us, it could harm our business and financial results in a variety of ways. A default by any counterparty with significant obligations to us could adversely affect our ability to conduct our operations

efficiently and at cost-effective rates, which in turn could materially adversely affect our earnings, liquidity, capital position and financial condition. Refer to “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk Management” for a detailed description of our business concentrations with each type of counterparty.

We have several key lender customers, and the loss of business volume from any one of these customers could adversely affect our business and result in a decrease in our market share and earnings.

Our ability to generate revenue from the purchase and securitization of mortgage loans depends on our ability to acquire a steady flow of mortgage loans from the originators of those loans. We acquire a significant portion of our mortgage loans from several large mortgage lenders. During 2007, our top five lender customers accounted for approximately 56% of our single-family business volume. Accordingly, maintaining our current business relationships and business volumes with our top lender customers is critical to our business. Some of our lender customers are experiencing, or may experience in the future, liquidity problems that would affect the volume of business they are able to generate. If any of our key lender customers significantly reduces the volume or quality of mortgage loans that the lender delivers to us or that we are willing to buy from them, we could lose significant business volume that we might be unable to replace, which could adversely affect our business and result in a decrease in our market share and earnings. In addition, a significant reduction in the volume of mortgage loans that we securitize could reduce the liquidity of Fannie Mae MBS, which in turn could have an adverse effect on their market value.

Our largest lender customer, Countrywide Financial Corporation and its affiliates, accounted for approximately 28% of our single-family business volume during 2007. In January 2008, Bank of America Corporation announced that it had reached an agreement to purchase Countrywide Financial Corporation. Together, Bank of America and Countrywide accounted for approximately 32% of our single-family business volume in 2007. We cannot predict at this time whether or when this merger will be completed and what effect the merger, if completed, will have on our relationship with Countrywide and Bank of America. Following the merger, we could lose significant business volume that we might be unable to replace, which could adversely affect our business and result in a decrease in our earnings and market share.

Changes in option-adjusted spreads or interest rates, or our inability to manage interest rate risk successfully, could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, liquidity, capital position and financial condition.

We fund our operations primarily through the issuance of debt and invest our funds primarily in mortgage-related assets that permit the mortgage borrowers to prepay the mortgages at any time. These business activities expose us to market risk, which is the risk of loss from adverse changes in market conditions. Our most significant market risks are interest rate risk and option-adjusted spread risk. Changes in interest rates affect both the value of our mortgage assets and prepayment rates on our mortgage loans.

Option-adjusted spread risk is the risk that the option-adjusted spreads on our mortgage assets relative to those on our funding and hedging instruments (referred to as the “OAS of our net mortgage assets”) may increase or decrease. These increases or decreases may be a result of market supply and demand dynamics. A widening, or increase, of the OAS of our net mortgage assets typically causes a decline in the fair value of the company and a decrease in our earnings and capital. A narrowing, or decrease, of the OAS of our net mortgage assets reduces our opportunities to acquire mortgage assets and therefore could have a material adverse effect on our future earnings and financial condition. We do not attempt to actively manage or hedge the impact of changes in the OAS of our net mortgage assets after we purchase mortgage assets, other than through asset monitoring and disposition.

Changes in interest rates could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, liquidity, capital position and financial condition. Our ability to manage interest rate risk depends on our ability to issue debt instruments with a range of maturities and other features at attractive rates and to engage in derivative transactions. We must exercise judgment in selecting the amount, type and mix of debt and derivative instruments that will most effectively manage our interest rate risk. The amount, type and mix of financial instruments we select

may not offset possible future changes in the spread between our borrowing costs and the interest we earn on our mortgage assets.

We rely on internal models to manage risk and to make business decisions. Our business could be adversely affected if those models fail to produce reliable results.

We make significant use of business and financial models to measure and monitor our risk exposures. The information provided by these models is also used in making business decisions relating to strategies, initiatives, transactions and products. Models are inherently imperfect predictors of actual results because they are based on data available to us and our assumptions about factors such as future loan demand, prepayment speeds, default rates, severity rates and other factors that may overstate or understate future experience. When market conditions change rapidly and dramatically, as they have since July of 2007, the assumptions that we use for our models may not keep pace with changing conditions. Incorrect data or assumptions in our models are likely to produce unreliable results. If our models fail to produce reliable results, we may not make appropriate risk management or business decisions, which could adversely affect our earnings, liquidity, capital position and financial condition.

In many cases, our accounting policies and methods, which are fundamental to how we report our financial condition and results of operations, require management to make judgments and estimates about matters that are inherently uncertain. Management also may rely on the use of models in making estimates about these matters.

Our accounting policies and methods are fundamental to how we record and report our financial condition and results of operations. Our management must exercise judgment in applying many of these accounting policies and methods so that these policies and methods comply with GAAP and reflect management’s judgment of the most appropriate manner to report our financial condition and results of operations. In some cases, management must select the appropriate accounting policy or method from two or more alternatives, any of which might be reasonable under the circumstances but might affect the amounts of assets, liabilities, revenues and expenses that we report. See “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” for a description of our significant accounting policies.

We have identified three accounting policies as critical to the presentation of our financial condition and results of operations. These accounting policies are described in “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates.” We believe these policies are critical because they require management to make particularly subjective or complex judgments about matters that are inherently uncertain and because of the likelihood that materially different amounts would be reported under different conditions or using different assumptions. Due to the complexity of these critical accounting policies, our accounting methods relating to these policies involve substantial use of models. Models are inherently imperfect predictors of actual results because they are based on assumptions, including assumptions about future events. Our models may not include assumptions that reflect very positive or very negative market conditions and, accordingly, our actual results could differ significantly from those generated by our models. As a result, the estimates that we use to prepare our financial statements, as well as our estimates of our future results of operations, may be inaccurate, potentially significantly.

Our ability to operate our business, meet our obligations and generate net interest income depends primarily on our ability to issue substantial amounts of debt frequently and at attractive rates.

The issuance of short-term and long-term debt securities in the domestic and international capital markets is our primary source of funding for our purchases of assets for our mortgage portfolio and for repaying or refinancing our existing debt. Moreover, a primary source of our revenue is the net interest income we earn from the difference, or spread, between the return that we receive on our mortgage assets and our borrowing costs. Our ability to obtain funds through the issuance of debt, and the cost at which we are able to obtain these funds, depends on many factors, including:


	•	our corporate and regulatory structure, including our status as a GSE;


	•	legislative or regulatory actions relating to our business, including any actions that would affect our GSE status or add additional requirements that would restrict or reduce our ability to issue debt;

	•	our credit ratings, including rating agency actions relating to our credit ratings;

	•	our financial results and changes in our financial condition;

	•	significant events relating to our business or industry;

	•	the public’s perception of the risks to and financial prospects of our business or industry;

	•	the preferences of debt investors;

	•	the breadth of our investor base;

	•	prevailing conditions in the capital markets;

	•	foreign exchange rates;

	•	interest rate fluctuations;

	•	the rate of inflation;

	•	competition from other issuers of AAA-rated agency debt;

	•	general economic conditions in the U.S. and abroad; and

	•	broader trade and political considerations among the U.S. and other countries.

If we are unable to issue debt securities at attractive rates in amounts sufficient to operate our business and meet our obligations, it would have a material adverse effect on our liquidity, earnings and financial condition.

A decrease in our current credit ratings would have an adverse effect on our ability to issue debt on acceptable terms, which would reduce our earnings and materially adversely affect our ability to conduct our normal business operations and our liquidity and financial condition.

Our borrowing costs and our broad access to the debt capital markets depend in large part on our high credit ratings, particularly on our senior unsecured debt. Our ratings are subject to revision or withdrawal at any time by the rating agencies. Any reduction in our credit ratings could increase our borrowing costs, limit our access to the capital markets and trigger additional collateral requirements under our derivatives contracts and other borrowing arrangements. A substantial reduction in our credit ratings would reduce our earnings and materially adversely affect our liquidity, our ability to conduct our normal business operations and our financial condition. Our credit ratings and ratings outlook is included in “Part II—Item 7—MD&A—Liquidity and Capital Management—Liquidity—Credit Ratings and Risk Ratings.”

Our business is subject to laws and regulations that restrict our activities and operations, which may adversely affect our earnings, liquidity and financial condition.

As a federally chartered corporation, we are subject to the limitations imposed by the Charter Act, extensive regulation, supervision and examination by OFHEO and HUD, and regulation by other federal agencies, including the Department of the Treasury and the SEC. We are also subject to many laws and regulations that affect our business, including those regarding taxation and privacy. In addition, the policy, approach or regulatory philosophy of these agencies can materially affect our business.

Regulation by OFHEO could adversely affect our earnings and financial condition. OFHEO has broad authority to regulate our operations and management in order to ensure our financial safety and soundness. For example, pursuant to our consent order with OFHEO, we currently may not increase our net mortgage portfolio assets above a specified amount that is adjusted on a quarterly basis, and we are required to maintain a 30% capital surplus over our statutory minimum capital requirement. These restrictions limit the amount of mortgage assets that we are able to purchase and securitize, which limits our ability to grow our mortgage credit book of business. As a result, these restrictions could negatively impact our earnings. Similarly, any new or additional regulations that OFHEO may adopt in the future could adversely affect our future earnings and

financial condition. If we fail to comply with any of our agreements with OFHEO or with any OFHEO regulation, including those relating to our capital requirements, we may incur penalties and could be subject to further restrictions on our activities and operations, or to investigation and enforcement actions by OFHEO.

Regulation by HUD and Charter Act limitations could adversely affect our market share, earnings and financial condition. HUD supervises our compliance with the Charter Act, which defines our permissible business activities. For example, we may not purchase single-family loans in excess of the conforming loan limits. In addition, under the Charter Act, our business is limited to the U.S. housing finance sector. As a result of these limitations on our ability to diversify our operations, our financial condition and earnings depend almost entirely on conditions in a single sector of the U.S. economy, specifically, the U.S. housing market. Our substantial reliance on conditions in the U.S. housing market may adversely affect the investment returns we are able to generate. In addition, the Secretary of HUD must approve any new Fannie Mae conventional mortgage program that is significantly different from those that we engaged in or that had been approved prior to the enactment of the 1992 Act. As a result, our ability to respond quickly to changes in market conditions by offering new programs designed to respond to these changes is subject to HUD’s prior approval process. These restrictions on our business operations may negatively affect our ability to compete successfully with other companies in the mortgage industry from time to time, which in turn may reduce our market share, our earnings and our financial condition.

HUD has established housing goals and subgoals for our business. HUD’s housing goals require that a specified portion of our mortgage purchases during each calendar year relate to the purchase or securitization of mortgage loans that finance housing for low- and moderate-income households, housing in underserved areas and qualified housing under the definition of special affordable housing. Most of these goals and subgoals have increased in 2008 over 2007 levels. These increases in goal levels and recent housing and mortgage market conditions, particularly the significant changes in the housing market that began in the third quarter of 2007, have made it increasingly challenging to meet our housing goals and subgoals. If we do not meet any housing goal or enforceable subgoal, we may become subject to increased HUD oversight for the following year or be subject to civil money penalties.

In addition, our efforts to meet the housing goals and subgoals established by HUD have reduced our profitability. In order to obtain business that contributes to our housing goals and subgoals, we made significant adjustments to our mortgage loan acquisition strategies during the past several years. These strategies included entering into some purchase and securitization transactions with lower expected economic returns than our typical transactions. We also relaxed some of our eligibility criteria to obtain goals-qualifying mortgage loans and increased our investments in higher risk mortgage loan products that were more likely to serve the borrowers targeted by HUD’s goals and subgoals. These efforts to meet our housing goals and subgoals often result in our acquisition of higher risk loans, and we typically incur proportionately more credit losses on these loans than on other types of loans. Accordingly, these efforts contributed to our higher credit losses in 2007 and may lead to further increases in our credit losses.

Regulation by the Department of the Treasury could adversely affect our liquidity, earnings and financial condition. We are subject to regulation by the Department of the Treasury. In June 2006, the Department of the Treasury announced that it would undertake a review of its process for approving our issuances of debt, which could adversely impact our flexibility in issuing debt securities in the future, including our ability to issue securities that are responsive to the marketplace. Because our ability to operate our business, meet our obligations and generate net interest income depends primarily on our ability to issue substantial amounts of debt frequently, any limitations on our ability to issue debt could adversely affect our liquidity, earnings and financial condition. We cannot predict whether the outcome of this review will materially impact our current business activities.

Legislation that would change the regulation of our business could, if enacted, reduce our competitiveness and adversely affect our liquidity, earnings and financial condition.

The U.S. Congress continues to consider legislation that, if enacted, could materially restrict our operations and adversely affect our liquidity, earnings and financial condition. In May 2007, the House of Representatives

approved a bill, H.R. 1427, that would establish a new, independent regulator for us and the other GSEs, with broad authority over both safety and soundness and mission. The bill, if enacted into law, would:


	•	authorize the regulator to establish standards for measuring the composition and growth of our mortgage investment portfolio;

	•	authorize the regulator to increase the level of our required capital, to the extent needed to ensure safety and soundness;

	•	require prior regulatory approval and a 30-day public notice and comment period for all new products;

	•	restructure the housing goals and change the method for enforcing compliance;

	•	authorize, and in some instances require, the appointment of a receiver if we become critically undercapitalized; and

	•	require us and Freddie Mac to contribute a percentage of our book of business—the sponsor of the bill has estimated a total contribution by us and Freddie Mac combined of $500 million to $600 million per year—to a fund to support affordable housing.

In addition, in October 2007, the House passed H.R. 2895, a bill to establish a National Affordable Housing Trust Fund to support housing that is affordable to low-income families. This Trust Fund would consist in part of amounts provided by us and Freddie Mac under the affordable housing fund provisions of H.R. 1427. H.R. 2895 does not seek to impose any new obligations on us that do not already exist under H.R. 1427 and is dependent upon passage of H.R. 1427 for funding.

As of the date of this filing, the only comprehensive GSE reform bill that has been introduced in the Senate is S. 1100. This bill is substantially similar to a bill that was approved by the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs in July 2005, and differs from H.R. 1427 in a number of respects. It is expected that a version of GSE reform legislation more similar to H.R. 1427 could be introduced in the Senate, but the timing is uncertain. Further, we cannot predict the content of any Senate bill that may be introduced or its prospects for Committee approval or passage by the full Senate.

In addition, S. 2391, the “GSE Mission Improvement Act,” has been introduced in the Senate. This bill would establish an affordable housing program funded by us and Freddie Mac. The sponsor of the bill has estimated our combined payment under the bill to be $500 million to $900 million per year. The bill would also modify our affordable housing goals and create a new statutory duty to serve specified underserved markets.

Enactment of legislation similar to these bills could significantly increase the costs of our compliance with regulatory requirements and limit our ability to compete effectively in the market, resulting in a material adverse effect on our liquidity, earnings and financial condition. We cannot predict the prospects for the enactment, timing or content of any congressional legislation, or the impact that any enacted legislation could have on our liquidity, earnings or financial condition.

We must evaluate our ability to realize the tax benefits associated with our deferred tax assets quarterly. In the future, we may be required to record a material expense to establish a valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets, which likely would materially adversely affect our earnings, financial condition and capital position.

As of December 31, 2007, we had approximately $13.0 billion in net deferred tax assets on our consolidated balance sheet that we must evaluate for realization on a quarterly basis under Statement of Financial Accounting Standards (“SFAS”) No. 109, Accounting for Income Taxes (“SFAS 109”). Deferred tax assets refer to assets on our consolidated balance sheets that relate to amounts that may be used to reduce any subsequent period’s income tax expense. Consequently, our ability to use these deferred tax assets in future periods depends on our ability to generate sufficient taxable income in the future.

If, in a future period, negative evidence regarding our ability to realize our deferred tax assets (such as a reduction in our projected future taxable income) outweighed positive evidence, we could be required to

record a material expense to establish a valuation allowance against our deferred tax assets at that time. Recording a material expense of this type would likely have a material adverse effect on our earnings, financial condition and capital position. Refer to “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 11, Income Taxes” for a description of our deferred tax assets.

Our business faces significant operational risks and an operational failure could materially adversely affect our business and our operations.

Shortcomings or failures in our internal processes, people or systems could have a material adverse effect on our risk management, liquidity, financial condition and results of operations; disrupt our business; and result in legislative or regulatory intervention, damage to our reputation and liability to customers. For example, our business is dependent on our ability to manage and process, on a daily basis, a large number of transactions across numerous and diverse markets. These transactions are subject to various legal and regulatory standards. We rely on the ability of our employees and our internal financial, accounting, cash management, data processing and other operating systems, as well as technological systems operated by third parties, to process these transactions and to manage our business. Due to events that are wholly or partially beyond our control, these employees or third parties could engage in improper or unauthorized actions, or these systems could fail to operate properly, which could lead to financial losses, business disruptions, legal and regulatory sanctions, and reputational damage.

Mortgage fraud could result in significant financial losses and harm to our reputation.

Because we use a process of delegated underwriting in which lenders make specific representations and warranties about the characteristics of the single-family mortgage loans we purchase and securitize, we do not independently verify most borrower information that is provided to us. This exposes us to the risk that one or more of the parties involved in a transaction (the borrower, seller, broker, appraiser, title agent, lender or servicer) will engage in fraud by misrepresenting facts about a mortgage loan. We may experience significant financial losses and reputational damage as a result of mortgage fraud.

We maintain a large volume of private borrower information. If this information is inadvertently exposed, it could result in significant financial losses, legal and regulatory sanctions, and harm to our reputation.

Our operations rely on the secure processing, storage and transmission of a large volume of private borrower information, such as names, residential addresses, social security numbers, credit rating data and other consumer financial information. Despite the protective measures we take to reduce the likelihood of information breaches, this information could be exposed in several ways, including through unauthorized access to our computer systems, employee error, computer viruses that attack our computer systems, software or networks, accidental delivery of information to an unauthorized party and loss of unencrypted media containing this information. Any of these events could result in significant financial losses, legal and regulatory sanctions, and reputational damage.

Future material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting could result in errors in our reported results and could have a material adverse effect on our operations, investor confidence in our business and the trading prices of our securities.

During 2007, we remediated eight material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting that existed as of December 31, 2006, as described in “Part II—Item 9A—Controls and Procedures” and in our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007. In order to remediate these material weaknesses, we implemented many new processes and reporting procedures in 2007. We may not effectively maintain these new controls. Remediated material weaknesses could recur, or we could identify new material weaknesses or significant deficiencies in our internal control over financial reporting that we have not identified to date. Any material weaknesses in our internal control over financial reporting could result in errors in our reported results and have a material adverse effect on our operations, investor confidence in our business and the trading prices of our securities.

Competition in the mortgage and financial services industries may adversely affect our earnings and financial condition.

We compete to acquire mortgage assets for our mortgage portfolio or to securitize mortgage assets into Fannie Mae MBS based on a number of factors, including our speed and reliability in closing transactions, our products and services, the liquidity of Fannie Mae MBS, our reputation and our pricing. We face competition in the secondary mortgage market from other GSEs and from commercial banks, savings and loan institutions, securities dealers, investment funds, insurance companies and other financial institutions. In addition, increased consolidation within the financial services industry has created larger financial institutions, increasing pricing pressure. This competition may adversely affect our earnings and financial condition.

If we are unable to develop, enhance and implement strategies to adapt to changing conditions in the mortgage industry and capital markets, our earnings and financial condition may be adversely affected.

The manner in which we compete and the products for which we compete are affected by changing conditions in the mortgage industry and capital markets. If we do not effectively respond to these changes, or if our strategies to respond to these changes are not as successful as our prior business strategies, our earnings and financial condition could be adversely affected. Additionally, we may not be able to execute any new or enhanced strategies that we adopt to address changing conditions and, even if fully implemented, these strategies may not increase our earnings due to factors beyond our control.

We are subject to pending civil litigation that, if decided against us, could require us to pay substantial judgments, settlements or other penalties.

We are a party to several lawsuits that, if decided against us, could require us to pay substantial judgments, settlements or other penalties, including: a consolidated shareholder class action lawsuit relating to our accounting restatement; a proposed consolidated class action lawsuit alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”); a proposed class action lawsuit alleging violations of federal and state antitrust laws and state consumer protection laws in connection with the setting of our guaranty fees; and a proposed class action lawsuit alleging that we violated purported fiduciary duties with respect to certain escrow accounts for FHA-insured multifamily mortgage loans. We are unable at this time to estimate our potential liability in these matters, but may be required to pay substantial judgments, settlements or other penalties and incur significant expenses in connection with these lawsuits, which could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, liquidity and financial condition. More information regarding these lawsuits is included in “Item 3—Legal Proceedings” and “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 20, Commitments and Contingencies.”

RISKS RELATING TO OUR INDUSTRY

A continuing, or broader, decline in U.S. home prices or in activity in the U.S. housing market could negatively impact our earnings, capital position and financial condition.

The continued deterioration of the U.S. housing market and national decline in home prices in 2007, along with the expected continued decline in 2008, are likely to result in increased delinquencies or defaults on the mortgage assets we own and that back our guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS. Further, the features of a significant portion of mortgage loans made in recent years, including loans with adjustable interest rates that may reset to higher payments either once or throughout their term, and loans that were made based on limited or no credit or income documentation, also increase the likelihood of future increases in delinquencies or defaults on mortgage loans. An increase in delinquencies or defaults will result in a higher level of credit losses and credit-related expenses, which in turn will reduce our earnings and adversely affect our capital position. Higher credit losses and credit-related expenses also could adversely affect our financial condition.

Our business volume is affected by the rate of growth in total U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding and the size of the U.S. residential mortgage market. Recently, the rate of growth in total U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding has slowed sharply in response to the reduced activity in the housing market and national declines in home prices. Total mortgage originations declined by an estimated 10% in 2007 from $2.8 trillion

in 2006 to $2.5 trillion in 2007. A decline in the rate of growth in mortgage debt outstanding reduces the number of mortgage loans available for us to purchase or securitize, which in turn could lead to a reduction in our net interest income and guaranty fee income. If we do not continue to increase our share of the secondary mortgage market, this decline in mortgage originations could adversely affect our earnings and financial condition.

Changes in general market and economic conditions in the United States and abroad may adversely affect our earnings and financial condition.

Our earnings and financial condition may be adversely affected by changes in general market and economic conditions in the United States and abroad. These conditions include short-term and long-term interest rates, the value of the U.S. dollar compared with the value of foreign currencies, the rate of inflation, fluctuations in both the debt and equity capital markets, employment growth and unemployment rates, and the strength of the U.S. national economy and local economies in the United States and economies of other countries with investors that hold our debt. These conditions are beyond our control and may change suddenly and dramatically.

Changes in market and economic conditions could adversely affect us in many ways, including the following:


	•	fluctuations in the global debt and equity capital markets, including sudden and unexpected changes in short-term or long-term interest rates, could decrease the fair value of our mortgage assets, derivatives positions and other investments, negatively affect our ability to issue debt at attractive rates, and reduce our net interest income; and

	•	a recession or other economic downturn, or rising unemployment, in the United States, either as a whole or in specific regions of the country, could decrease homeowner demand for mortgage loans and increase the number of homeowners who become delinquent or default on their mortgage loans. An increase in delinquencies or defaults would likely result in a higher level of credit losses and credit-related expenses, which would reduce our earnings. Also, decreased homeowner demand for mortgage loans could reduce our guaranty fee income, net interest income and the fair value of our mortgage assets. A recession or other economic downturn could also increase the risk that our counterparties will default on their obligations to us or become insolvent, resulting in a reduction in our earnings and thereby adversely affecting our capital position and financial condition.

Our business is subject to uncertainty as a result of the current disruption in the housing and mortgage markets.

We expect the current disruption in the housing and mortgage markets to continue and worsen in 2008. The disruption has adversely affected the U.S. economy in general and the housing and mortgage markets in particular and likely will continue to do so. In addition, a variety of legislative, regulatory and other proposals have been or may be introduced in an effort to address the disruption. Depending on the scope and nature of legislative, regulatory or other initiatives, if any, that are adopted to respond to this disruption, our earnings, liquidity, capital position and financial condition could be adversely affected.

Defaults by a large financial institution could adversely affect our business and financial markets generally.

We routinely enter into a high volume of transactions with counterparties in the financial services industry. The financial soundness of many financial institutions may be closely interrelated as a result of credit, trading or other relationships between the institutions. As a result, concerns about, or a default or threatened default by, one institution could lead to significant market-wide liquidity problems, losses or defaults by other institutions. This may adversely affect financial intermediaries, such as clearing agencies, clearing houses, banks, securities firms and exchanges, with which we interact on a daily basis, and therefore could adversely affect our business.

The occurrence of a major natural or other disaster in the United States could increase our delinquency rates and credit losses or disrupt our business operations and lead to financial losses.

The occurrence of a major natural disaster, terrorist attack or health epidemic in the United States could increase our delinquency rates and credit losses in the affected region or regions, which could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, liquidity and financial condition. For example, we experienced an increase in our delinquency rates and credit losses in 2005 as a result of Hurricane Katrina.

The contingency plans and facilities that we have in place may be insufficient to prevent a disruption in the infrastructure that supports our business and the communities in which we are located from having an adverse effect on our ability to conduct business. Substantially all of our senior management and investment personnel work out of our offices in the Washington, DC metropolitan area. If a disruption occurs and our senior management or other employees are unable to occupy our offices, communicate with other personnel or travel to other locations, our ability to service and interact with each other and with our customers may suffer, and we may not be successful in implementing contingency plans that depend on communication or travel.


Item 1B.	Unresolved Staff Comments

None.


Item 2.	Properties

We own our principal office, which is located at 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, as well as additional Washington, DC facilities at 3939 Wisconsin Avenue, NW and 4250 Connecticut Avenue, NW. We also own two office facilities in Herndon, Virginia, as well as two additional facilities located in Reston, Virginia, and Urbana, Maryland. These owned facilities contain a total of approximately 1,459,000 square feet of space. We lease the land underlying the 4250 Connecticut Avenue building pursuant to a ground lease that automatically renews on July 1, 2029 for an additional 49 years unless we elect to terminate the lease by providing notice to the landlord of our decision to terminate at least one year prior to the automatic renewal date. In addition, we lease approximately 428,000 square feet of office space at 4000 Wisconsin Avenue, NW, which is adjacent to our principal office. The present lease term for 4000 Wisconsin Avenue expires in April 2013. We have one additional 5-year renewal option remaining under the original lease. We also lease an additional approximately 471,000 square feet of office space at seven locations in Washington, DC, suburban Virginia and Maryland. We maintain approximately 454,000 square feet of office space in leased premises in Pasadena, California; Atlanta, Georgia; Chicago, Illinois; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Dallas, Texas.


Item 3.	Legal Proceedings

This item describes our material legal proceedings. In addition to the matters specifically described in this item, we are involved in a number of legal and regulatory proceedings that arise in the ordinary course of business that do not have a material impact on our business. Litigation claims and proceedings of all types are subject to many factors that generally cannot be predicted accurately.

We record reserves for claims and lawsuits when they are probable and reasonably estimable. We presently cannot determine the ultimate resolution of the matters described below. For matters where the likelihood or extent of a loss is not probable or cannot be reasonably estimated, we have not recognized in our consolidated financial statements the potential liability that may result from these matters. If one or more of these matters is determined against us, it could have a material adverse effect on our earnings, liquidity and financial condition.

Securities Class Action Lawsuits

In re Fannie Mae Securities Litigation

Beginning on September 23, 2004, 13 separate complaints were filed by holders of our securities against us, as well as certain of our former officers, in three federal district courts. All of the cases were consolidated and/or transferred to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The court entered an order naming the Ohio

Public Employees Retirement System and State Teachers Retirement System of Ohio as lead plaintiffs. The lead plaintiffs filed a consolidated complaint on March 4, 2005 against us and certain of our former officers. That complaint was subsequently amended on April 17, 2006 and then again on August 14, 2006. The lead plaintiffs’ second amended complaint also added KPMG LLP and Goldman, Sachs & Co. as additional defendants. The lead plaintiffs allege that the defendants made materially false and misleading statements in violation of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, largely with respect to accounting statements that were inconsistent with the GAAP requirements relating to hedge accounting and the amortization of premiums and discounts. The lead plaintiffs contend that the alleged fraud resulted in artificially inflated prices for our common stock and seek unspecified compensatory damages, attorneys’ fees, and other fees and costs.

On January 7, 2008, the court issued an order that certified the action as a class action, and appointed the lead plaintiffs as class representatives and their counsel as lead counsel. The court defined the class as all purchasers of Fannie Mae common stock and call options and all sellers of publicly traded Fannie Mae put options during the period from April 17, 2001 through December 22, 2004.

On December 12, 2006, we filed suit against KPMG LLP, our former outside auditor and a co-defendant in the shareholder class action suit, in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. The complaint alleges state law negligence and breach of contract claims related to certain audit and other services provided by KPMG. We filed an amended complaint on February 15, 2008, adding additional allegations. We are seeking compensatory damages in excess of $2 billion to recover costs related to our restatement and other damages. On December 12, 2006, KPMG removed the case to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and it has been consolidated for pretrial purposes with the shareholder class action suit.

On April 16, 2007, KPMG LLP filed cross-claims against us in this action for breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent inducement, negligent misrepresentation and contribution. KPMG amended these cross-claims on February 15, 2008. KPMG is seeking unspecified compensatory, consequential, restitutionary, rescissory and punitive damages, including purported damages related to legal costs, exposure to legal liability, costs and expenses of responding to investigations related to our accounting, lost fees, attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. Our motion to dismiss certain of KPMG’s cross-claims was denied.

In addition, two individual securities cases were filed by institutional investor shareholders in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The first case was filed on January 17, 2006 by Evergreen Equity Trust, Evergreen Select Equity Trust, Evergreen Variable Annuity Trust and Evergreen International Trust against us and certain current and former officers and directors. The second individual securities case was filed on January 25, 2006 by 25 affiliates of Franklin Templeton Investments against us, KPMG LLP, and certain current and former officers and directors. On April 27, 2007, KPMG also filed cross-claims against us in this action that are essentially identical to those it alleges in the consolidated shareholder class action case. On June 29, 2006 and then again on August 14 and 15, 2006, the individual securities plaintiffs filed first amended complaints and then second amended complaints. The second amended complaints each added Radian Guaranty Inc. as a defendant.

The individual securities actions asserted various federal and state securities law and common law claims against us and certain of our current and former officers and directors based upon essentially the same alleged conduct as that at issue in the consolidated shareholder class action, and also assert insider trading claims against certain former officers. Both cases sought unspecified compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and other fees and costs. In addition, the Evergreen plaintiffs sought an award of treble damages under state law. The court consolidated these individual securities actions into the consolidated shareholder class action for pretrial purposes and possibly through final judgment.

On July 31, 2007, the court dismissed all of the individual securities plaintiffs’ claims against the current and former officer and director defendants, except for Franklin D. Raines and J. Timothy Howard. In addition, the court dismissed the individual securities plaintiffs’ state law claims and certain of their federal securities law claims against us, Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy Howard and Leanne Spencer. It also limited the individual securities plaintiffs’ insider trading claims against Franklin D. Raines, J. Timothy Howard and Leanne Spencer. On February 12, 2008 and February 15, 2008, respectively, upon motions by the plaintiffs to dismiss

their actions, the court dismissed the individual securities plaintiffs’ separate actions without prejudice to their rights to recover as class members in the consolidated securities class action.

We believe we have valid defenses to the claims in the remaining lawsuits described above and intend to defend these lawsuits vigorously.

Shareholder Derivative Lawsuits

In re Fannie Mae Shareholder Derivative Litigation

Beginning on September 28, 2004, ten plaintiffs filed twelve shareholder derivative actions (i.e., lawsuits filed by shareholder plaintiffs on our behalf) in three different federal district courts and the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against certain of our current and former officers and directors and against us as a nominal defendant. All of these shareholder derivative actions have been consolidated into the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the court entered an order naming Pirelli Armstrong Tire Corporation Retiree Medical Benefits Trust and Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System as co-lead plaintiffs. A consolidated complaint was filed on September 26, 2005 against certain of our current and former officers and directors and against us as a nominal defendant. The consolidated complaint alleges that the defendants purposefully misapplied GAAP, maintained poor internal controls, issued a false and misleading proxy statement and falsified documents to cause our financial performance to appear smooth and stable, and that Fannie Mae was harmed as a result. The claims are for breaches of the duty of care, breach of fiduciary duty, waste, insider trading, fraud, gross mismanagement, violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and unjust enrichment. Plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages, punitive damages, attorneys’ fees, and other fees and costs, as well as injunctive relief directing us to adopt certain proposed corporate governance policies and internal controls.

The lead plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on September 1, 2006, which added certain third parties as defendants. The amended complaint also added allegations concerning the nature of certain transactions between these entities and Fannie Mae, and added additional allegations from OFHEO’s May 2006 report on its special investigation of Fannie Mae and from a report by the law firm of Paul, Weiss, Rifkind & Garrison LLP on its investigation of Fannie Mae. On May 31, 2007, the court dismissed this consolidated lawsuit in its entirety against all defendants. On June 27, 2007, plaintiffs filed a Notice of Appeal, which is currently pending with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.

On September 20, 2007, James Kellmer, a shareholder who had filed one of the derivative actions that was consolidated into the consolidated derivative case, filed a motion for clarification or, in the alternative, for relief of judgment from the Court’s May 31, 2007 Order dismissing the consolidated case. Mr. Kellmer’s motion seeks clarification that the Court’s May 31, 2007 dismissal order does not apply to his January 10, 2005 action, and that his case can now proceed. This motion is pending.

On June 29, 2007, Mr. Kellmer also filed a new derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Mr. Kellmer’s new complaint alleges that he made a demand on the Board of Directors on September 24, 2004, and that this new action should now be allowed to proceed. On December 18, 2007, Mr. Kellmer filed an amended complaint that narrowed the list of named defendants to certain of our current and former directors, Goldman Sachs Group, Inc. and us, as a nominal defendant. The factual allegations in Mr. Kellmer’s 2007 amended complaint are largely duplicative of those in the amended consolidated complaint and his amended complaint’s claims are based on theories of breach of fiduciary duty, indemnification, negligence, violations of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and unjust enrichment. His amended complaint seeks unspecified money damages, including legal fees and expenses, disgorgement and punitive damages, as well as injunctive relief.

In addition, on July 6, 2007, Arthur Middleton filed a derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that is also based on Mr. Kellmer’s alleged September 24, 2004 demand. This complaint names as defendants certain of our current and former officers and directors, the Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., Goldman, Sachs & Co. and us, as a nominal defendant. The allegations in this new complaint are essentially identical to the allegations in the amended consolidated complaint referenced above, and this plaintiff seeks

identical relief. On July 27, 2007, Mr. Kellmer filed a motion to consolidate these two new derivative cases and to be appointed lead counsel. We filed a motion to dismiss Mr. Middleton’s complaint for lack of standing on October 3, 2007, and a motion to dismiss Mr. Kellmer’s 2007 complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on October 12, 2007. These motions remain pending.

Arthur Derivative Litigation

On November 26, 2007, Patricia Browne Arthur filed a derivative action in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against certain of our current and former officers and directors and against us as a nominal defendant. The complaint alleges that the defendants wrongfully failed to disclose our exposure to the subprime mortgage crisis and that this failure artificially inflated our stock price and allowed certain of the defendants to profit by selling their shares based on material inside information; and that the Board improperly authorized the company to buy back $100 million in shares while the stock price was artificially inflated. The complaint alleges that the defendants’ actions violated Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder. It also alleges breaches of fiduciary duty (including duties of care, loyalty, reasonable inquiry, oversight, good faith and supervision); misappropriation of information and breach of fiduciary duties of loyalty and good faith (specifically in connection with stock sales); waste of corporate assets; and unjust enrichment. Plaintiff seeks damages; corporate governance changes; equitable relief in the form of attaching, impounding or imposing a constructive trust on the individual defendants’ assets; restitution; and attorneys’ fees and costs.

ERISA Action

In re Fannie Mae ERISA Litigation (formerly David Gwyer v. Fannie Mae)

On October 15, 2004, David Gwyer filed a proposed class action complaint in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Two additional proposed class action complaints were filed by other plaintiffs on May 6, 2005 and May 10, 2005. These cases are based on the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) and name us, our Board of Directors’ Compensation Committee and certain of our former and current officers and directors as defendants.

These cases were consolidated on May 24, 2005 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and a consolidated complaint was filed on June 15, 2005. The plaintiffs in this consolidated ERISA-based lawsuit purport to represent a class of participants in our Employee Stock Ownership Plan between January 1, 2001 and the present. Their claims are based on alleged breaches of fiduciary duty relating to accounting matters. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, attorneys’ fees, and other fees and costs, and other injunctive and equitable relief. On July 23, 2007, the Compensation Committee of our Board of Directors filed a motion to dismiss, which remains pending.

We believe we have valid defenses to the claims in this lawsuit and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

Former CEO Arbitration

On September 19, 2005, Franklin D. Raines, our former Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, initiated arbitration proceedings against Fannie Mae before the American Arbitration Association concerning our obligations under his employment agreement. On April 24, 2006, the arbitrator issued a decision regarding the effective date of Mr. Raines’s retirement. As a result of this decision, on November 7, 2006, the parties entered into a consent award, which partially resolved the issue of amounts due Mr. Raines. In accordance with the consent award, we paid Mr. Raines $2.6 million on November 17, 2006 under his employment agreement. By agreement, final resolution of the unresolved issues was deferred until after our accounting restatement results were announced. On June 26, 2007, counsel for Mr. Raines notified the arbitrator that the parties have been unable to resolve the following issues: Mr. Raines’s entitlement to additional shares of common stock under our performance share plan for the three-year performance share cycle that ended in 2003; Mr. Raines’s entitlement to shares of common stock under our performance share plan for the three-year performance share cycles that ended in each of 2004, 2005 and 2006; and Mr. Raines’s entitlement to additional compensation of approximately $140,000.

Antitrust Lawsuits

In re G-Fees Antitrust Litigation

Since January 18, 2005, we have been served with 11 proposed class action complaints filed by single-family borrowers that allege that we and Freddie Mac violated federal and state antitrust and consumer protection statutes by agreeing to artificially fix, raise, maintain or stabilize the price of our and Freddie Mac’s guaranty fees. Two of these cases were filed in state courts. The remaining cases were filed in federal court. The two state court actions were voluntarily dismissed. The federal court actions were consolidated in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs filed a consolidated amended complaint on August 5, 2005. Plaintiffs in the consolidated action seek to represent a class of consumers whose loans allegedly “contain a guarantee fee set by” us or Freddie Mac between January 1, 2001 and the present. Plaintiffs seek unspecified damages, treble damages, punitive damages, and declaratory and injunctive relief, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs.

We and Freddie Mac filed a motion to dismiss on October 11, 2005, which remains pending.

We believe we have valid defenses to the claims in this lawsuit and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

Escrow Litigation

Casa Orlando Apartments, Ltd., et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Association (formerly known as Medlock Southwest Management Corp., et al. v. Federal National Mortgage Association)

A complaint was filed against us in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Texarkana Division) on June 2, 2004, in which plaintiffs purport to represent a class of multifamily borrowers whose mortgages are insured under Sections 221(d)(3), 236 and other sections of the National Housing Act and are held or serviced by us. The complaint identified as a proposed class low- and moderate-income apartment building developers who maintained uninvested escrow accounts with us or our servicer. Plaintiffs Casa Orlando Apartments, Ltd., Jasper Housing Development Company and the Porkolab Family Trust No. 1 allege that we violated fiduciary obligations that they contend we owed to borrowers with respect to certain escrow accounts and that we were unjustly enriched. In particular, plaintiffs contend that, starting in 1969, we misused these escrow funds and are therefore liable for any economic benefit we received from the use of these funds. Plaintiffs seek a return of any profits, with accrued interest, earned by us related to the escrow accounts at issue, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs. Our motions to dismiss and for summary judgment with respect to the statute of limitations were denied.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint on December 16, 2005. On January 3, 2006, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification, which remains pending.

We believe we have valid defenses to the claims in this lawsuit and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously.

Investigation by the New York Attorney General

On November 6, 2007, the New York Attorney General’s Office issued a letter to us discussing that Office’s investigation into appraisal practices in the mortgage industry. The letter also discussed a complaint filed by the Attorney General’s Office against First American Corporation and its subsidiary eAppraiseIT alleging inappropriate appraisal practices engaged in by First American and eAppraiseIT with respect to loans appraised for Washington Mutual, Inc. We are cooperating with the Attorney General and have agreed to appoint an independent examiner to review these matters. On November 7, 2007, the Attorney General’s Office issued a subpoena to us regarding appraisals and valuations as they may relate to our mortgage purchases and securitizations.


Item 4.	Submission of Matters to a Vote of Security Holders

Fannie Mae’s 2007 annual meeting of shareholders was held on December 14, 2007. At the meeting, shareholders voted on the following matters:

1. The election of 12 directors;


2.	The ratification of the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as independent registered public accounting firm for 2007;

3. The approval of an amendment to the Fannie Mae Stock Compensation Plan of 2003;

4. A shareholder proposal to require a shareholder advisory vote on executive compensation; and

5. A shareholder proposal to authorize cumulative voting for directors.

The following individuals were elected as directors for a term expiring at the next annual meeting of shareholders.


Director Nominee	Votes FOR		Votes AGAINST

Stephen B. Ashley		755,999,713		77,893,584
Dennis R. Beresford		818,711,560		15,181,737
Louis J. Freeh		819,298,885		14,594,412
Brenda J. Gaines		819,286,524		14,606,773
Karen N. Horn, Ph.D.		817,569,312		16,323,985
Bridget A. Macaskill		821,803,272		12,090,025
Daniel H. Mudd		784,814,206		49,079,091
Leslie Rahl		785,416,196		48,477,101
John C. Sites, Jr.		819,390,506		14,502,791
Greg C. Smith		786,758,170		47,135,127
H. Patrick Swygert		758,606,096		75,287,201
John K. Wulff		785,770,543		48,122,754

In addition to the directors elected by the shareholders, the President of the United States has the authority to appoint five members of Fannie Mae’s Board. The terms of office of the most recent Presidential appointees to Fannie Mae’s Board expired on May 25, 2004, and the President has not reappointed or replaced any of them. Pursuant to the Charter Act, those five board positions will remain open unless and until the President names new appointees.

The selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP as independent registered public accounting firm for 2007 was ratified as follows:


Votes FOR:			823,882,340
Votes AGAINST:			4,042,578
Abstentions:			5,968,379

There were no broker non-votes with respect to the ratification of the selection of Deloitte & Touche LLP.

The amendment to the Fannie Mae Stock Compensation Plan of 2003 was approved as follows:


Votes FOR:			664,953,967
Votes AGAINST:			52,058,653
Abstentions:			7,870,882
Broker non-votes:			109,009,795

PART II


Item 5.	Market for Registrant’s Common Equity, Related Stockholder Matters and Issuer Purchases of Equity Securities

Our common stock is publicly traded on the New York and Chicago stock exchanges and is identified by the ticker symbol “FNM.” The transfer agent and registrar for our common stock is Computershare, P.O. Box 43081, Providence, Rhode Island 02940.

Common Stock Data

The following table shows, for the periods indicated, the high and low sales prices per share of our common stock in the consolidated transaction reporting system as reported in the Bloomberg Financial Markets service, as well as the dividends per share declared in each period.


Quarter	High		Low		Dividend

2006
First quarter	$	58.60	$	48.41	$	0.26
Second quarter		54.53		46.17		0.26
Third quarter		56.31		46.30		0.26
Fourth quarter		62.37		54.40		0.40
2007
First quarter	$	60.44	$	51.88	$	0.40
Second quarter		69.94		53.30		0.50
Third quarter		70.57		56.19		0.50
Fourth quarter		68.60		26.38		0.50

Dividends

The table set forth under “Common Stock Data” above presents the dividends we declared on our common stock from the first quarter of 2006 through and including the fourth quarter of 2007. In January 2008, the Board of Directors decreased the common stock dividend to $0.35 per share, beginning with the first quarter of 2008. Our Board of Directors will continue to assess dividend payments for each quarter based upon the facts and conditions existing at the time.

Our payment of dividends is subject to certain restrictions, including the submission of prior notification to OFHEO detailing the rationale and process for the proposed dividend and prior approval by the Director of OFHEO of any dividend payment that would cause our capital to fall below specified capital levels. See “Part I—Item 1—Business—Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities—Regulation and Oversight of Our Activities—OFHEO Regulation—Capital Adequacy Requirements” for a description of these restrictions. Payment of dividends on our common stock is also subject to the prior payment of dividends on our 15 series of preferred stock, representing an aggregate of 466,375,000 shares outstanding as of December 31, 2007. Annual dividends declared on the shares of our preferred stock outstanding totaled $503 million for the year ended December 31, 2007. See “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 17, Preferred Stock” for detailed information on our preferred stock dividends.

Holders

As of January 31, 2008, we had approximately 21,000 registered holders of record of our common stock, including holders of our restricted stock.

Recent Sales of Unregistered Securities

First Quarter 2007

Information about sales and issuances of our unregistered securities during the quarter ended March 31, 2007 was provided in a current report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on May 9, 2007.

Second Quarter 2007

Information about sales and issuances of our unregistered securities during the quarter ended June 30, 2007 was provided in a current report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on August 9, 2007.

Third Quarter 2007

Information about sales and issuances of our unregistered securities during the quarter ended September 30, 2007 was provided in our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007, filed with the SEC on November 9, 2007.

Fourth Quarter 2007

Under the Fannie Mae Stock Compensation Plan of 1993 and the Fannie Mae Stock Compensation Plan of 2003 (the “Plans”), we regularly provide stock compensation to employees and members of the Board of Directors to attract, motivate and retain these individuals and promote an identity of interests with shareholders.

During the quarter ended December 31, 2007, we issued 299,556 shares of common stock upon the exercise of stock options for an aggregate exercise price of approximately $15.5 million, of which approximately $5.9 million was paid in cash and the remainder was paid by the delivery to us of 151,885 shares of common stock. Options granted under the Plans typically vest 25% per year beginning on the first anniversary of the date of grant and expire ten years after the grant. No options have been granted since May 2005.

On June 15, 2007, our Board of Directors determined that a portion of contingent shares under our Performance Share Program would be awarded. Accordingly, during the quarter ended December 31, 2007, we awarded 161,109 shares of common stock, as a result of which 94,019 shares of common stock were issued and 67,090 shares of common stock that otherwise would have been issued were withheld by us in lieu of requiring the recipients to pay us the withholding taxes due upon awarding.

In consideration of services rendered or to be rendered, we also issued 15,800 shares of restricted stock during the quarter ended December 31, 2007. In addition, 18,533 restricted stock units vested, as a result of which 12,676 shares of common stock were issued and 5,857 shares of common stock that otherwise would have been issued were withheld by us in lieu of requiring the recipients to pay us the withholding taxes due upon vesting. Shares of restricted stock and restricted stock units granted under the Plans typically vest in equal annual installments over three or four years beginning on the first anniversary of the date of grant. Each restricted stock unit represents the right to receive a share of common stock at the time of vesting. As a result, restricted stock units are generally similar to restricted stock, except that restricted stock units do not confer voting rights on their holders.

All options, shares of restricted stock and restricted stock units were granted to persons who were employees or members of the Board of Directors of Fannie Mae.

As reported in a current report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on November 21, 2007, we issued 20 million shares of 7.625% Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series R, with an aggregate stated value of $500 million, on November 21, 2007. As reported in a current report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December 20, 2007, we issued an additional 1.2 million shares of Series R Preferred Stock, with an aggregate stated value of $30 million, on December 14, 2007.

As reported in a current report on Form 8-K filed with the SEC on December 11, 2007, we issued 280 million shares of Fixed-to-Floating Rate Non-Cumulative Preferred Stock, Series S, with an aggregate stated value of $7 billion, on December 11, 2007.

The securities we issue are “exempted securities” under laws administered by the SEC to the same extent as securities that are obligations of, or are guaranteed as to principal and interest by, the United States. As a result, we do not file registration statements with the SEC with respect to offerings of our securities.

Purchases of Equity Securities by the Issuer

The following table shows shares of our common stock we repurchased during the fourth quarter of 2007.


					Total Number of		Maximum Number of
	Total				Shares Purchased as		Shares that
	Number of		Average		Part of Publicly		May Yet be
	Shares		Price Paid		Announced		Purchased Under
	Purchased⁽¹⁾		per Share		Program⁽²⁾		the Program⁽³⁾⁽⁴⁾
	(Shares in thousands)

2007
October 1-31		170	$	64.09		—		58,960
November 1-30		28		53.64		—		56,490
December 1-31		20		36.81		—		56,254

Total		218		60.30		—		56,254


⁽¹⁾		These shares consist of: (a) 51,573 shares of common stock reacquired from employees to pay an aggregate of approximately $2.6 million in withholding taxes due upon the vesting of restricted stock; (b) 13,618 shares of common stock reacquired from employees to pay an aggregate of approximately $0.9 million in withholding taxes due upon the exercise of stock options; (c) 151,885 shares of common stock repurchased from employees and members of our Board of Directors to pay an aggregate exercise price of approximately $9.6 million for stock options; and (d) 625 shares of common stock repurchased from employees in a limited number of instances relating to employees’ financial hardship.

⁽²⁾		On January 21, 2003, we publicly announced that the Board of Directors had approved a share repurchase program (the “General Repurchase Authority”) under which we could purchase in open market transactions the sum of (a) up to 5% of the shares of common stock outstanding as of December 31, 2002 (49.4 million shares) and (b) additional shares to offset stock issued or expected to be issued under our employee benefit plans. No shares were repurchased during the fourth quarter of 2007 pursuant to the General Repurchase Authority. The General Repurchase Authority has no specified expiration date.

⁽³⁾		Consists of the total number of shares that may yet be purchased under the General Repurchase Authority as of the end of the month, including the number of shares that may be repurchased to offset stock that may be issued pursuant to awards outstanding under the Plans. Repurchased shares are first offset against any issuances of stock under our employee benefit plans. To the extent that we repurchase more shares in a given month than have been issued under our plans, the excess number of shares is deducted from the 49.4 million shares approved for repurchase under the General Repurchase Authority. Because of new stock issuances and expected issuances pursuant to new grants under our employee benefit plans, the number of shares that may be purchased under the General Repurchase Authority fluctuates from month to month. See “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 13, Stock-Based Compensation Plans,” for information about shares issued, shares expected to be issued, and shares remaining available for grant under our employee benefit plans. Shares that remain available for grant under our employee benefit plans are not included in the amount of shares that may yet be purchased reflected in the table above.

⁽⁴⁾		On May 9, 2006, we announced that the Board of Directors authorized a stock repurchase program (the “Employee Stock Repurchase Program”) under which we could repurchase up to $100 million shares of common stock from non-officer employees. The amount for October 1-31 in this column also includes the remaining 1,622,435 shares that could have been repurchased under the Employee Stock Repurchase Program at the end October, based on a common stock price of $57.14 per share, which is the average of the high and low stock prices of Fannie Mae common stock on October 31, 2007. The Employee Stock Repurchase Program was terminated in November 2007.


Item 6.	Selected Financial Data

The selected consolidated financial data presented below is summarized from our results of operations for the five-year period ended December 31, 2007, as well as selected consolidated balance sheet data as of the end of each year within this five-year period. The data presented below should be read in conjunction with the audited consolidated financial statements and related notes and with “Item 7—MD&A” included in this annual report on Form 10-K.


	For the Year Ended December 31,
	2007			2006			2005			2004			2003
	(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)

Statement of Operations Data:
Net interest income⁽¹⁾	$	4,581		$	6,752		$	11,505		$	18,081		$	19,477
Guaranty fee income⁽²⁾		5,071			4,250			4,006			3,784			3,432
Losses on certain guaranty contracts		(1,424	)		(439	)		(146	)		(111	)		(95	)
Trust management income⁽¹⁾		588			111			—			—			—
Derivatives fair value losses, net		(4,113	)		(1,522	)		(4,196	)		(12,256	)		(6,289	)
Other income (loss), net⁽²⁾⁽³⁾		(1,533	)		(675	)		(806	)		(881	)		(4,276	)
Credit-related expenses⁽⁴⁾		5,012			783			428			363			353
Income before extraordinary gains (losses) and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle		(2,035	)		4,047			6,294			4,975			7,852
Extraordinary gains (losses), net of tax effect		(15	)		12			53			(8	)		195
Cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of tax effect		—			—			—			—			34
Net income (loss)		(2,050	)		4,059			6,347			4,967			8,081
Preferred stock dividends and issuance costs at redemption		(513	)		(511	)		(486	)		(165	)		(150	)
Net income (loss) available to common stockholders		(2,563	)		3,548			5,861			4,802			7,931

Per Common Share Data:
Earnings (loss) per share before extraordinary gains (losses) and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle:
Basic	$	(2.62	)	$	3.64		$	5.99		$	4.96		$	7.88
Diluted		(2.62	)		3.64			5.96			4.94			7.85
Earnings (loss) per share after extraordinary gains (losses) and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle:
Basic	$	(2.63	)	$	3.65		$	6.04		$	4.95		$	8.12
Diluted		(2.63	)		3.65			6.01			4.94			8.08
Weighted-average common shares outstanding:
Basic		973			971			970			970			977
Diluted		973			972			998			973			981
Cash dividends declared per share	$	1.90		$	1.18		$	1.04		$	2.08		$	1.68

New Business Acquisition Data:
Fannie Mae MBS issues acquired by third parties⁽⁵⁾	$	563,648		$	417,471		$	465,632		$	462,542		$	850,204
Mortgage portfolio purchases⁽⁶⁾		182,471			185,507			146,640			262,647			572,852

New business acquisitions	$	746,119		$	602,978		$	612,272		$	725,189		$	1,423,056


	As of December 31,
	2007		2006		2005		2004		2003
	(Dollars in millions)

Balance Sheet Data:
Investments in securities:
Trading	$	63,956	$	11,514	$	15,110	$	35,287	$	43,798
Available-for-sale		293,557		378,598		390,964		532,095		523,272
Mortgage loans:
Loans held for sale		7,008		4,868		5,064		11,721		13,596
Loans held for investment, net of allowance		396,516		378,687		362,479		389,651		385,465
Total assets		882,547		843,936		834,168		1,020,934		1,022,275
Short-term debt		234,160		165,810		173,186		320,280		343,662
Long-term debt		562,139		601,236		590,824		632,831		617,618
Total liabilities		838,429		802,294		794,745		981,956		990,002
Preferred stock		16,913		9,108		9,108		9,108		4,108
Total stockholders’ equity		44,011		41,506		39,302		38,902		32,268

Regulatory Capital Data:
Core capital⁽⁷⁾	$	45,373	$	41,950	$	39,433	$	34,514	$	26,953
Total capital⁽⁸⁾		48,658		42,703		40,091		35,196		27,487

Mortgage Credit Book Of Business Data:
Mortgage portfolio⁽⁹⁾	$	727,903	$	728,932	$	737,889	$	917,209	$	908,868
Fannie Mae MBS held by third parties⁽¹⁰⁾		2,118,909		1,777,550		1,598,918		1,408,047		1,300,520
Other guarantees⁽¹¹⁾		41,588		19,747		19,152		14,825		13,168

Mortgage credit book of business	$	2,888,400	$	2,526,229	$	2,355,959	$	2,340,081	$	2,222,556


Ratios:	2007			2006			2005			2004			2003

Return on assets ratio^(12)*		(0.30	)%		0.42	%		0.63	%		0.47	%		0.82	%
Return on equity ratio^(13)*		(8.3	)		11.3			19.5			16.6			27.6
Equity to assets ratio^(14)*		4.8			4.8			4.2			3.5			3.3
Dividend payout ratio⁽¹⁵⁾		N/A			32.4			17.2			42.1			20.8
Average effective guaranty fee rate (in basis points)^(16)*		23.7	bp		22.2	bp		22.3	bp		21.8	bp		21.9	bp
Credit loss ratio (in basis points)^(17)*		5.3			2.2			1.1			1.0			1.0
Earnings to combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends and issuance costs at redemption ratio⁽¹⁸⁾		0.89:1			1.12:1			1.23:1			1.22:1			1.36:1


⁽¹⁾		Beginning in November 2006, compensation we received for our role as master servicer, issuer and trustee for Fannie Mae MBS, has been reported as “Trust management income.” Prior to November 2006, this income was reported as a component of “Interest income.”

⁽²⁾		Certain prior period amounts that previously were included as a component of “Fee and other income” have been reclassified to “Guaranty fee income” to conform to the current period presentation.

⁽³⁾		Consists of investment gains (losses), net; debt extinguishment gains (losses), net; losses from partnership investments; and fee and other income.

⁽⁴⁾		Consists of provision for credit losses and foreclosed property expense.

⁽⁵⁾		Unpaid principal balance of Fannie Mae MBS issued and guaranteed by us and acquired by third-party investors during the reporting period. Excludes securitizations of mortgage loans held in our portfolio and the purchase of Fannie Mae MBS for our investment portfolio.

⁽⁶⁾		Unpaid principal balance of mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities we purchased for our investment portfolio during the reporting period. Includes advances to lenders and mortgage-related securities acquired through the extinguishment of debt. Includes capitalized interest beginning in 2006.


⁽⁷⁾		The sum of (a) the stated value of outstanding common stock (common stock less treasury stock); (b) the stated value of outstanding non-cumulative perpetual preferred stock; (c) paid-in-capital; and (d) our retained earnings. Core capital excludes accumulated other comprehensive income (loss).

⁽⁸⁾		The sum of (a) core capital and (b) the total allowance for loan losses and reserve for guaranty losses, less (c) the specific loss allowance (that is, the allowance required on individually impaired loans).

⁽⁹⁾		Unpaid principal balance of mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities held in our portfolio.

⁽¹⁰⁾		Unpaid principal balance of Fannie Mae MBS held by third-party investors. The principal balance of resecuritized Fannie Mae MBS is included only once in the reported amount.

⁽¹¹⁾		Includes single-family and multifamily credit enhancements that we have provided and that are not otherwise reflected in the table.

⁽¹²⁾		Net income available to common stockholders divided by average total assets during the period.

⁽¹³⁾		Net income available to common stockholders divided by average outstanding common equity during the period.

⁽¹⁴⁾		Average stockholders’ equity divided by average total assets during the period.

⁽¹⁵⁾		Common dividends declared during the period divided by net income available to common stockholders for the period.

⁽¹⁶⁾		Guaranty fee income as a percentage of average outstanding Fannie Mae MBS and other guaranties during the period.

⁽¹⁷⁾		Charge-offs, net of recoveries and foreclosed property expense, as a percentage of the average guaranty book of business during the period. Effective January 1, 2007, we have excluded from our credit loss ratio any initial losses recorded pursuant to SOP 03-3 on loans purchased from trusts when the purchase price of seriously delinquent loans that we purchase from Fannie Mae MBS trusts exceeds the fair value of the loans at the time of purchase. Our credit loss ratio including the effect of these initial losses recorded pursuant to SOP 03-3 would have been 9.8 basis points, 2.8 basis points and 2.0 basis points for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. We have revised our presentation of credit losses for 2006 and 2005 to conform to the current period presentation. Because SOP 03-3 was not in effect prior to 2005, the change in presentation had no impact on our credit losses for 2004 and 2003. Refer to “Item 7—MD&A—Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related Expenses—Credit Loss Performance” for more information regarding this change in presentation. In addition, we previously calculated our credit loss ratio based on credit losses as a percentage of our mortgage credit book of business, which includes non-Fannie Mae mortgage-related securities held in our mortgage investment portfolio that we do not guarantee. Because losses related to non-Fannie Mae mortgage-related securities are not reflected in our credit losses, we revised the calculation of our credit loss ratio to reflect credit losses as a percentage of our guaranty book of business. Our credit loss ratio calculated based on our mortgage credit book of business would have been 5.0 bp, 2.1 bp, 1.0 bp, 1.0 bp and 0.9 bp for 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003 respectively.

⁽¹⁸⁾		“Earnings” for purposes of calculating this ratio consists of reported income before extraordinary gains (losses), net of tax effect and cumulative effect of change in accounting principle, net of tax effect plus (a) provision for federal income taxes, minority interest in earnings (losses) of consolidated subsidiaries, losses from partnership investments, capitalized interest and total interest expense. “Combined fixed charges and preferred stock dividends and issuance costs at redemption” includes (a) fixed charges (b) preferred stock dividends and issuance costs on redemptions of preferred stock, defined as pretax earnings required to pay dividends on outstanding preferred stock using our effective income tax rate for the relevant periods. Fixed charges represent total interest expense and capitalized interest.

Note:


*	Average balances for purposes of ratio calculations are based on balances at the beginning of the year and at the end of each respective quarter for 2007. Average balances for purposes of ratio calculations for all other years are based on beginning and end of year balances.


Item 7.	Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

This discussion should be read in conjunction with our consolidated financial statements as of December 31, 2007 and related notes. Readers should also review carefully “Part I—Item 1—Business—Forward-Looking Statements” and “Part I—Item 1A—Risk Factors” for a description of the forward-looking statements in this report and a discussion of the factors that might cause our actual results to differ, perhaps materially, from these forward-looking statements. Please refer to “Glossary of Terms Used in This Report” for an explanation of key terms used throughout this discussion.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Summary of Our Financial Results

Our financial results for 2007 were severely affected by the disruption in the mortgage and credit markets during the second half of 2007 and continued weakness in the housing markets. We recorded a net loss of $2.1 billion and a diluted loss per share of $2.63 in 2007, compared with net income and diluted earnings per share of $4.1 billion and $3.65 in 2006, and $6.3 billion and $6.01 in 2005.

Our financial results for the first half of 2007 differed markedly from our financial results for the second half of 2007. For the first half of 2007, we recorded net income of $2.9 billion and diluted earnings per share of $2.72. The second half of 2007, however, was marked by significant disruption and uncertainty in the housing, mortgage and credit markets. For the second half of 2007, we recorded a net loss of $5.0 billion, as market factors such as significant increases in serious delinquency rates and foreclosures, home price declines, widening credit spreads, shifts in interest rates and illiquidity in the capital markets had a material adverse effect on our results, more than offsetting the income we earned in the first half of the year.

The following factors had the most significant adverse effect on our 2007 financial results:


	•	an increase of $2.8 billion in our provision for credit losses, excluding the component of our provision attributable to fair value losses recorded in connection with our purchase of seriously delinquent loans from MBS trusts pursuant to Statement of Position No. 03-3, Accounting for Certain Loans or Debt Securities Acquired in a Transfer (“SOP 03-3”), which are referred to in this report as “SOP 03-3 fair value losses”;

	•	an increase of $5.1 billion in market-based valuation losses, including derivatives fair value losses, losses on certain guaranty contracts, SOP 03-3 fair value losses and losses on trading securities; and

	•	a decrease of $2.2 billion in net interest income.

The effect of these adverse factors more than offset the favorable impact of an increase of $821 million in our guaranty fee income.

Impact of Market Conditions on Our Business

We are experiencing a significant disruption in the housing, mortgage and credit markets. The market downturn that began in 2006 continued throughout 2007, and is continuing in 2008, with significant declines in new and existing home sales, housing starts, mortgage originations and home prices, as well as significant increases in inventories of unsold homes, mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures. During the second half of 2007, the capital markets also were characterized by high levels of volatility, reduced levels of liquidity in the mortgage and broader credit markets, significantly wider credit spreads and rating agency downgrades on a growing number of mortgage-related securities. We discuss these and other market and economic factors that affect our business in more detail in “Part I—Item 1—Business—Residential Mortgage Market Overview—Market and Economic Factors Affecting Our Business.”

These challenging market conditions contributed to our net loss in 2007 and adversely affected our regulatory capital position. The adverse effects of market conditions on our 2007 financial results included:


	•	A substantial increase in our credit-related expenses due to national home price declines and economic weakness in some regional markets.

	•	A substantial increase in derivatives losses, reflecting the decline in swap interest rates during the second half of 2007.

	•	A significant increase in our losses on certain guaranty contracts, which primarily reflects the effect that the deterioration in the housing market and reduced liquidity in the mortgage and credit markets has had on the amount of these losses. We are required to estimate our losses on certain guaranty contracts based on the price a market participant would require, after adding in a reasonable profit for the market participant, to assume our guaranty obligations. During the second half of 2007, the market’s expectation of future credit risk increased significantly. As a result, the estimated amount a market participant would require to assume our guaranty obligations increased significantly. Because of the manner in which we account for these contracts, we recognize an immediate loss in earnings at the time we issue a guaranteed Fannie Mae MBS if our guaranty obligation exceeds the fair value of our guaranty asset. We expect to recover that loss over time as the loans underlying the associated Fannie Mae MBS liquidate. In contrast, our credit losses over time will reflect our actual loss experience on these contracts.

	•	A significant increase in fair value losses recorded in connection with our purchase of delinquent loans from MBS trusts. When we purchase a delinquent loan from an MBS trust, we record a loss to the extent the purchase price exceeds the fair value of the loan. We determine the fair value of the loan based on the price a third party would require to purchase that loan. Because of the significant disruption in the housing and mortgage markets during the second half of 2007, the indicative market prices we obtained from third parties in connection with our purchases of delinquent loans from our MBS trusts decreased significantly. We therefore reduced our estimates of the fair value of these loans. These reduced fair value estimates caused a substantial increase in the losses we recorded in connection with these purchases, which contributed to the substantial increase in our credit-related expenses.

	•	An increase in net losses on trading securities and in unrealized losses on available-for-sale securities due to a significant widening of credit spreads, particularly during the second half of 2007.

	•	A significant decrease in our net interest income and net interest yield due to the higher cost of debt.

	•	A significant decline in the fair value of our net assets as a result of a significant widening of credit spreads and a higher market risk premium for mortgage assets.

The factors that negatively affected our financial results and regulatory capital position included losses primarily reflecting market–based valuations related to the adverse conditions in the housing, mortgage and credit markets during the second half of 2007. The table below shows the effect of these market-based valuations on our 2007 earnings.

Table 1: Effect on Earnings of Significant Market-Based Valuation Adjustments


	For the Year Ended December 31,
	2007			2006			2005
	(Dollars in millions)

Derivatives fair value losses, net	$	(4,113	)	$	(1,522	)	$	(4,196	)
Losses on certain guaranty contracts		(1,424	)		(439	)		(146	)
SOP 03-3 fair value losses⁽¹⁾		(1,364	)		(204	)		(251	)
Gains (losses) on trading securities, net		(365	)		8			(442	)

Total pre-tax effect on earnings	$	(7,266	)	$	(2,157	)	$	(5,035	)


⁽¹⁾		SOP 03-3 fair value losses are reflected in our consolidated statements of operations as a component of the “Provision for credit losses” (which is a component of our “Credit-related expenses”).

We discuss how we account for and record various financial instruments in our financial statements in “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates—Fair Value of Financial Instruments.” We provide a more detailed discussion of key factors affecting year-over-year changes in our results of operations in “Consolidated Results of Operations,” “Business Segment Results,” “Consolidated Balance Sheet Analysis” and “Supplemental Non-GAAP Information—Fair Value Balance Sheets.”

Response to Market Challenges and Opportunities

We expect continued weakness in the housing and mortgage markets will continue to adversely affect our financial results and regulatory capital position in 2008, while at the same time offering us the opportunity over the longer term to build a stronger competitive position within our market. Our principal strategy for responding to the current challenging market conditions is to prudently manage and preserve our capital, while building a solid mortgage credit book of business and continuing to fulfill our chartered mission of providing liquidity, stability and affordability to the secondary mortgage market. We identify below a number of the steps we have taken and are taking to achieve that strategy.

Managing and Preserving Capital

During the second half of 2007, our business activities were constrained by our need to maintain regulatory capital at required levels. We took steps to bolster our regulatory capital position during the second half of 2007 by:


	•	issuing preferred stock totaling $8.9 billion;

	•	announcing a 30% reduction in our common stock dividend effective for the first quarter of 2008;

	•	managing the size of our investment portfolio; and

	•	limiting or forgoing business opportunities that we otherwise would have pursued.

Building a Solid Mortgage Credit Book of Business by Managing and Mitigating Credit Exposure

We have implemented a variety of measures designed to help us manage and mitigate the credit exposure we face as a result of our investment and guarantee activities. These measures include:


	•	establishing guidelines designed to limit our credit exposure, including tightening our eligibility standards for mortgage loans we acquire;

	•	limiting losses associated with our guaranty contracts by increasing our guaranty fees and implementing an adverse market delivery charge to compensate us for the added risk we incur during this period of increased market uncertainty; and

	•	working to mitigate realized credit losses, both by working closely with our servicers to enhance our ability to act promptly when borrowers fall behind on their loan payments and by offering an expanded array of loss mitigation alternatives.

Providing Liquidity, Stability and Affordability to the Secondary Mortgage Market

The mortgage and credit market disruption has created a need for additional credit and liquidity in the secondary mortgage market. To respond to this need and to fulfill our mission of providing liquidity, stability and affordability to the secondary mortgage market, we are continuing to increase our participation in the securitization of mortgage loans. These actions had the following positive effects on our business in 2007:


	•	our guaranty fee income increased by $821 million to $5.1 billion during 2007, and we expect it will continue to increase during 2008;

	•	both our single-family and multifamily guaranty books of business experienced rapid growth beginning in the second half of 2007, with our estimated market share of new single-family mortgage-related securities

issuances increasing to approximately 48.5% for the fourth quarter of 2007, from approximately 24.6% for the fourth quarter of 2006; and


	•	our total mortgage credit book of business increased by 14% during 2007, to $2.9 trillion as of December 31, 2007.

Outlook

We expect housing market weakness to continue in 2008, leading to increased delinquencies, defaults and foreclosures on mortgage loans, and slower growth in U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding. Based on our current market outlook, we expect that our credit losses and credit-related expenses will continue to increase during 2008, as will our guaranty fee income. We also believe that our single-family guaranty book of business will grow at a faster rate than the rate of overall growth in U.S. residential mortgage debt outstanding. We have experienced an increased level of volatility and a significant decrease in the fair value of our net assets since the end of 2007, due to the continued widening of credit spreads since the end of the year and the ongoing disruption in the mortgage and credit markets. If current market conditions persist, we expect the fair value of our net assets will decline in 2008 from the estimated fair value of $35.8 billion as of December 31, 2007.

To date, our access to sources of liquidity has been adequate to meet both our capital and funding needs. If the current challenging market conditions continue or worsen, however, we may take further actions to meet our regulatory capital requirements, including reducing the size of our investment portfolio through liquidations or by selling assets, issuing preferred, convertible preferred or common stock, reducing or eliminating our common stock dividend, forgoing purchase and guaranty opportunities, and changing our current business practices to reduce our losses and expenses.

We provide additional detail on trends that may affect our result of operations, financial condition and regulatory capital position in future periods in “Consolidated Results of Operations” below.

CRITICAL ACCOUNTING POLICIES AND ESTIMATES

The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires management to make a number of judgments, assumptions and estimates that affect our reported results of operations and financial condition. Understanding our accounting policies and the extent to which we use management judgment and estimates in applying these policies is integral to understanding our financial statements. We describe our most significant accounting policies in “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.”

We have identified three of our accounting policies as critical because they involve significant judgments and assumptions about highly complex and inherently uncertain matters and the use of reasonably different estimates and assumptions could have a material impact on our reported results of operations or financial condition. These critical accounting policies and estimates are as follows:


	•	Fair Value of Financial Instruments

	•	Other-than-temporary Impairment of Investment Securities

	•	Allowance for Loan Losses and Reserve for Guaranty Losses

We evaluate our critical accounting estimates and judgments required by our policies on an ongoing basis and update them as necessary based on changing conditions. Management has discussed each of these significant accounting policies, including the related estimates and judgments, with the Audit Committee of the Board of Directors.

Fair Value of Financial Instruments

Fair value is defined as the amount at which a financial instrument could be exchanged in a current transaction between willing, unrelated parties, other than in a forced or liquidation sale. The use of fair value

to measure our financial instruments is fundamental to our financial statements and is our most critical accounting estimate because a substantial portion of our assets and liabilities are recorded at estimated fair value and, in certain circumstances, our valuation techniques involve a high degree of management judgment. The principal assets and liabilities that we record at fair value, and the manner in which changes in fair value affect our earnings and stockholders’ equity, are summarized below.


	•	Derivatives initiated for risk management purposes and mortgage commitments: Recorded in the consolidated balance sheets at fair value with changes in fair value recognized in earnings.

	•	Guaranty assets and guaranty obligations: Recorded in the consolidated balance sheets at fair value at inception of the guaranty obligation. The guaranty obligation affects earnings over time through amortization into income as we collect guaranty fees and reduce the related guaranty asset receivable.

	•	Loans purchased with evidence of credit deterioration: Recorded in the consolidated balance sheets at the lower of acquisition cost or fair value at the date of purchase with any difference between the acquisition cost and the fair value recognized in earnings.

	•	Investments in trading or available-for-sale (“AFS”) securities: Recorded in the consolidated balance sheets at fair value. Unrealized gains and losses on trading securities are recognized in earnings; however, unrealized gains and losses on AFS securities are recorded in stockholders’ equity as a component of AOCI.

	•	Held-for-sale (“HFS”) loans: Recorded in the consolidated balance sheets at the lower of cost or market with changes in the fair value (not to exceed the cost basis of these loans) recognized in earnings.

	•	Retained interests in securitizations and guaranty fee buy-ups on Fannie Mae MBS: Recorded in the consolidated balance sheets at fair value. Unrealized gains and losses on interest-only securities and buy-ups accounted for like trading securities are recognized in earnings. Unrealized gains and losses on interest-only securities and buy-ups accounted for like AFS securities are recorded in stockholders’ equity as a component of AOCI.

We use one of the following three practices for estimating fair value, the selection of which is based on the availability and reliability of relevant market data: (i) actual, observable market prices or market prices obtained from multiple third parties when available; (ii) market data and model-based interpolations using standard models widely accepted within the industry if market prices are not available; or (iii) internally developed models that employ techniques such as a discounted cash flow approach and that include market-based assumptions, such as prepayment speeds and default and severity rates, derived from internally developed models. Price transparency tends to be limited in less liquid markets where quoted market prices or observable market data may not be available. We regularly refine and enhance our valuation methodologies to correlate more closely to observable market data. When observable market prices or data are not readily available or do not exist, the estimation of fair value may require significant management judgment and assumptions. See “Part I—Item 1A—Risk Factors” for a discussion of the risks and uncertainties related to our use of valuation models.

In September 2006, the Financial Accounting Standards Board (“FASB”) issued SFAS No. 157, Fair Value Measurements (“SFAS 157”), which establishes a framework for measuring fair value under GAAP. SFAS 157 provides a three-level fair value hierarchy for classifying the source of information used in fair value measures and requires increased disclosures about the sources and measurements of fair value. In February 2007, the FASB issued SFAS No. 159, The Fair Value Option for Financial Assets and Financial Liabilities (“SFAS 159”). SFAS 159 permits companies to make a one-time election to report certain financial instruments at fair value with the changes in fair value included in earnings. SFAS 157 and SFAS 159 are effective for fiscal years beginning after November 15, 2007, and interim periods within those fiscal years. We provide additional information in “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” on the impact to our consolidated financial statements from the January 1, 2008 adoption of each of these accounting pronouncements.

The downturn in the housing market, along with the mortgage and credit market disruption that began in the third quarter of 2007, resulted in a repricing of credit risk and a dislocation of historical pricing relationships

between certain financial instruments. These conditions, which triggered greater market volatility, wider credit spreads and a lack of price transparency, have had widespread implications on how companies measure the fair value of certain financial instruments and a direct impact on the significant market-based valuation adjustments recorded in our earnings that are identified in “Executive Summary—Impact of Market Conditions on Our Business” and include: (1) Derivatives fair value losses, net; (2) Losses on certain guaranty contracts; and (3) SOP 03-3 fair value losses. We provide additional information below on our accounting for these items and discuss the effect of these market conditions on the valuation process, including the judgments and uncertainties surrounding our estimates, the extent to which we have adjusted our assumptions used to derive these estimates and the basis for these adjustments, and the impact that reasonably likely changes in either market conditions or our estimates and assumptions may have on our results.

Fair Value of Derivatives—Effect on Derivatives Fair Value Gains (Losses)

Changes in the fair value of our derivatives, which we recognize in our consolidated statements of operations in “Derivatives fair value gains (losses), net,” generally have produced the most significant volatility in our earnings. Table 2 summarizes the estimated fair value of derivative assets and liabilities recorded in our consolidated balance sheets as of December 31, 2007 and 2006. We present additional detail on the estimated fair value and the related outstanding notional amount of our derivatives by derivative instrument type in “Consolidated Balance Sheet Analysis—Derivative Instruments.”

Table 2: Derivative Assets and Liabilities at Estimated Fair Value


	As of December 31,
	2007			2006
	(Dollars in millions)

Derivative assets at fair value	$	2,797		$	4,931
Derivative liabilities at fair value		(3,417	)		(1,184	)

Net derivative asset (liability) at fair value	$	(620	)	$	3,747

Our derivatives consist primarily of over-the-counter (“OTC”) contracts and commitments to purchase and sell mortgage assets. While exchange-traded derivatives can generally be valued using observable market prices or market parameters, OTC derivatives are generally valued using industry-standard models or model-based interpolations that utilize market inputs obtained from widely accepted third-party sources. The valuation models that we use to derive the fair value of our OTC derivatives require inputs such as the contractual terms, market prices, yield curves, and measures of implied volatility. A substantial majority of our OTC derivatives trade in liquid markets, such as interest rate swaps and swaptions; in those cases, model selection and inputs generally do not involve significant judgments.

When internal pricing models are used to determine fair value, we use recently executed comparable transactions and other observable market data to validate the results of the model. Consistent with market practice, we have individually negotiated agreements with certain counterparties to exchange collateral based on the level of fair values of the derivative contracts they have executed. Through our derivatives collateral exchange process, one party or both parties to a derivative contract provides the other party with information about the fair value of the derivative contract to calculate the amount of collateral required. This sharing of fair value information provides additional support of the recorded fair value for relevant OTC derivative instruments. For more information regarding our derivative counterparty risk management practices, see “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Institutional Counterparty Credit Risk Management—Derivatives Counterparties.” In circumstances where we cannot verify the model with market transactions, it is possible that a different valuation model could produce a materially different estimate of fair value. As markets and products develop and the pricing for certain derivative products becomes more transparent, we continue to refine our valuation methodologies. We did not make any material changes to the quantitative models used to value our derivatives instruments for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 or 2005.

We disclose the sensitivity of the fair value of our derivative assets and liabilities to changes in interest rates, a key variable that affects the estimated fair value, in “Risk Management—Interest Rate Risk Management and Other Market Risks—Measuring Interest Rate Risk.”

Fair Value of Guaranty Assets and Guaranty Obligations—Effect on Losses on Certain Guaranty Contracts

When we issue Fannie Mae MBS, we record in our consolidated balance sheets a guaranty asset that represents the present value of cash flows expected to be received as compensation over the life of the guaranty. As guarantor of our Fannie Mae MBS issuances, we also recognize at inception of the guaranty the fair value of our obligation to stand ready to perform over the term of the guaranty. We record this amount in our consolidated balance sheets as a component of “Guaranty obligations.” The fair value of this obligation represents management’s estimate, at the time we enter into the guaranty contract, of the amount of compensation that we would expect a third party of similar credit standing to require to assume our guaranty obligation.

The fair value of our guaranty obligations consists of compensation to cover estimated default costs, including estimated unrecoverable principal and interest that will be incurred over the life of the underlying mortgage loans backing our Fannie Mae MBS, estimated foreclosure-related costs, estimated administrative and other costs related to our guaranty, and an estimated market rate of return, or profit, that a market participant would require to assume the obligation. As described in “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies,” if the fair value at inception of the guaranty obligation exceeds the fair value of the guaranty asset and other consideration, we recognize a loss in “Losses on certain guaranty contracts” in our consolidated statements of operations. Subsequent to the inception of the guaranty, we establish a “Reserve for guaranty losses” through a recurring process by which the probable and estimable losses incurred on homogeneous pools of loans underlying our MBS trusts are recognized in accordance with SFAS No. 5, Accounting for Contingencies (“SFAS No. 5”). Such future probable and estimable losses incurred on loans underlying our MBS may equal, exceed or be less than the expected losses estimated as a component of the fair value of our guaranty obligation at inception of the guaranty contract. We recognize incurred losses in our consolidated statements of operations as a part of our provision for credit losses and as foreclosed property expense.

If all other things are equal, the SFAS 5 reserve for guaranty losses is reduced at period end by virtue of the fact that the purchased loan is no longer included in the population for which the SFAS 5 reserve is determined. Therefore, if the charge-off (which represents the SOP 03-3 fair value loss) is greater than the decrease in the reserve caused by removing the loan from the population subject to SFAS 5, an incremental loss is recognized through the current period provision for credit losses.

Following is an example to illustrate how losses recorded at inception on certain guaranty contracts affect our earnings over time. Assume that within one of our guaranty contracts, we have an individual Fannie Mae MBS issuance for which the present value of the guaranty fees we expect to receive over time based on both a five-year contractual and expected life of the fixed-rate loans underlying the MBS totals $100. Based on market expectations, we estimate that a market participant would require $120 to assume the risk associated with our guaranty of the principal and interest due to investors in the MBS trust. To simplify the accounting in our example, we assume that the expected life of the underlying loans remains the same over the five-year contractual period and the annual scheduled principal and interest loan payments are equal over the five-year period.

Accounting Upon Initial Issuance of MBS:


	•	We record a guaranty asset of $100, which represents the present value of the guaranty fees we expect to receive over time.

	•	We record a guaranty obligation of $120, which represents the estimated amount that a market participant would require to assume this obligation.

	•	We record the difference of $20, or the amount by which the guaranty obligation exceeds the guaranty asset, in our consolidated statements of operations as losses on certain guaranty contracts.

Accounting in Each of Years 1 to 5:


	•	We collect $20 in guaranty fees per year, which represents one-fifth of the outstanding receivable amount, and record this amount as a reduction in the guaranty asset.

	•	We reduce the guaranty obligation by a proportionate amount, or one-fifth, and record this amount, which totals $24, in our consolidated statements of operations as guaranty fee income.


	For the Years Ended													Cumulative
	0			1		2		3		4		5		Effect

Losses on certain guaranty contracts	$	(20	)	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	—	$	(20	)
Guaranty fee income		—			24		24		24		24		24		120

Pre-tax income	$	(20	)	$	24	$	24	$	24	$	24	$	24	$	100

As illustrated in the example, the $20 loss recognized at inception of the guaranty contract will be accreted into earnings over time as a component of guaranty fee income. For additional information on our accounting for guaranty transactions, which is more complex than the example presented, refer to “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.”

When available, we base the fair value of the guaranty obligations that we record when we issue Fannie Mae MBS on market information obtained from spot transaction prices. In the absence of spot transaction data, which is the case for the substantial majority of our guaranties, we estimate the fair value using internal models that project the future credit performance of the loans underlying our guaranty obligations under a variety of economic scenarios. Key inputs and assumptions used in our models that affect the fair value of our guaranty obligations are home price growth rates and an estimated market rate of return.

The fair value of our guaranty obligations is highly sensitive to changes in interest rates and the market’s perception of future credit performance. When there is a market expectation of a decline in home prices, which currently exists, the level of perceived credit risk for a mortgage loan tends to increase because the market anticipates a likelihood of higher credit losses. Accordingly, the market requires a higher rate of return. Incorporating these assumptions into our internal models has resulted in significant increases in the estimated fair value of our guaranty obligations on new Fannie Mae MBS issuances and an increase in the losses recognized at inception on certain guaranty contracts. We review the reasonableness of the results of our models by comparing those results with available market information; however, it is possible that different assumptions and inputs could produce materially different estimates of the fair value of our guaranty obligations and losses on certain guaranty contracts, particularly in the current market environment.

Based on our experience, we expect our actual future credit losses to be significantly less than the fair value of our guaranty obligations, as the fair value of our guaranty obligations includes not only future expected credit losses but also an estimated market rate of return that a market participant would require to assume the obligation Our combined allowance for loan losses and reserve for guaranty losses reflects our estimate of the probable credit losses inherent in our guaranty book of business. We discuss our credit-related expenses and credit losses in “Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related Expenses.”

Fair Value of Loans Purchased with Evidence of Credit Deterioration—Effect on Credit-Related Expenses

We have the option to purchase delinquent loans underlying our Fannie Mae MBS trusts under specified conditions, which we describe in “Item 1—Business—Business Segments—Single-Family Credit Guaranty Business—MBS Trusts—Optional and Required Purchases of Mortgage Loans from Single-Family MBS Trusts.” The acquisition cost for loans purchased from MBS trusts is the unpaid principal balance of the loan plus accrued interest. We generally are required to purchase the loan if it is delinquent 24 consecutive months or at the time of foreclosure, if it is still in the MBS trust at that time. As long as the loan or REO property remains in the MBS trust, we continue to pay principal and interest to the MBS trust.

As described in “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies,” when we purchase loans that are within the scope of SOP 03-3, we record our net investment in these seriously delinquent loans at the lower of the acquisition cost of the loan or the estimated fair value at

the date of purchase. To the extent the acquisition cost exceeds the estimated fair value, we record a SOP 03-3 fair value loss charge-off against the “Reserve for guaranty losses” at the time we acquire the loan. We reduce the “Guaranty obligation” (in proportion to the “Guaranty asset”) as payments on the loans underlying our MBS are received, including those resulting from the purchase of seriously delinquent loans from MBS trusts, and report the reduction as a component of “Guaranty fee income.” These prepayments may cause an impairment of the “Guaranty asset,” which results in a proportionate reduction in the corresponding “Guaranty obligation” and recognition of income. We place acquired loans that are three months or more past due on nonaccrual status. If the loan subsequently becomes less than three months past due, or we subsequently modify the loan and determine through a financial analysis that the borrower is able to make the modified payments, we return the loan to accrual status. While the loan is on nonaccrual status, we do not recognize income on the loan. We apply any cash receipts towards the recovery of the interest receivable at acquisition and to past due principal payments. We may, however, subsequently recover a portion or the full amount of these SOP 03-3 fair value losses as discussed below.

To the extent that we have previously recognized an SOP 03-3 fair value loss, our recorded investment in the loan is less than the acquisition cost. Under SOP 03-3, the excess of the contractual cash flows of the loan over the estimated cash flows we expect to collect represents a nonaccretable difference that is not recognized in our earnings. If the estimated cash flows we expect to collect exceed the initial recorded investment in the loan, we accrete this excess amount into our earnings as a component of interest income over the life of the loan. If a seriously delinquent loan we purchase pays off in full, we recover the SOP 03-3 fair value loss as a component of interest income on the date of the payoff. If the loan is returned to accrual status, we recover the SOP 03-3 fair value loss over the contractual life of the loan as a component of net interest income (via an adjustment of the effective yield of the loan). If we foreclose upon a loan purchased from an MBS trust, we record a charge-off at foreclosure based on the excess of our recorded investment in the loan over the fair value of the collateral less estimated selling costs. Any charge-off recorded at foreclosure for SOP 03-3 loans recorded at fair value at acquisition would be lower than it would have been if we had recorded the loan at its acquisition cost. In some cases, the proceeds from the sale of the collateral may exceed our recorded investment in the loan, resulting in a gain.

Following is an example of how SOP 03-3 fair value losses, credit-related expenses and credit losses related to loans underlying our guaranty contracts are recorded in our consolidated financial statements. This example shows the accounting and effect on our financial statements of the following events: (a) we purchase a seriously delinquent loan subject to SOP 03-3 from an MBS trust; (b) we subsequently foreclose on this mortgage loan; and (c) we sell the foreclosed property that served as collateral for the loan. This example is based on the following assumptions:


	•	We purchase from an MBS trust a seriously delinquent loan that has an unpaid principal balance and accrued interest of $100 at a cost of $100. The estimated fair value at the date of purchase is $70.

	•	We subsequently foreclose upon the mortgage loan and record the acquired REO property at the appraised fair value, net of estimated selling costs, which is $80.

	•	We sell the REO property for $85.


	Accounting Impact of Assumptions
	Initial
	Purchase						Sale of			Cumulative
	of Loan			Subsequent			Foreclosed			Earnings
	from Trust^(a)			Foreclosure^(b)			Property^(c)			Impact

Consolidated Balance Sheet:
Assets:
Mortgage loans	$	70		$	(70	)	$	—
Acquired property, net		—			80			(80	)
Liabilities:
Reserve for guaranty losses—beginning balance⁽¹⁾	$	—		$	—		$	—
Plus: Provision for credit losses attributable to SOP 03-3 fair value losses		30
Less: Charge-offs related to initial purchase discount on SOP 03-3 loans		(30	)		—			—
Plus: Recoveries		—			—			—

Reserve for guaranty losses—ending balance⁽¹⁾	$	—		$	—		$	—

Consolidated Statement of Operations:
Provision for credit losses attributable to SOP 03-3 fair value losses	$	(30	)	$	—		$	—		$	(30	)
Foreclosed property income (expense)		—			10			5			15

Net pre-tax income (loss) effect	$	(30	)	$	10		$	5		$	(15	)


⁽¹⁾		The adjustment to the “Provision for credit losses” is presented for illustrative purposes only. We actually determine our “Reserve for guaranty losses” by aggregating homogeneous loans into pools based on similar underlying risk characteristics in accordance with SFAS No. 5. Accordingly, we do not have a specific reserve or provision attributable to each delinquent loan purchased from an MBS trust.

As indicated in the example above, we would record the loan at the estimated fair value of $70 and record an SOP 03-3 fair value loss of $30 as a charge-off to the reserve for guaranty losses when we acquire the delinquent loan from the MBS trust. We record a provision for credit losses each period to adjust the reserve for guaranty losses to reflect the probable credit losses incurred on loans remaining in MBS trusts. Therefore, if the charge-off for the SOP 03-3 fair value loss is greater than the decrease in the reserve caused by removing the loan from the population subject to SFAS 5, an incremental loss will be recognized through the provision for credit losses in the period the loan is purchased. We would record the REO property acquired through foreclosure at the appraised fair value, net of estimated selling costs, of $80. Although we recorded an initial SOP 03-3 fair value loss of $30, the actual credit-related expense we experience on this loan would be $15, which represents the difference between the amount we paid for the loan and the amount we received from the sale of the acquired REO property, net of selling costs.

As described above, if a loan subject to SOP 03-3 “cures,” which means it returns to accrual status, pays off or is resolved through modification, long-term forbearance or a repayment plan, the SOP 03-3 fair value loss would be recovered over the life of the loan as a component of net interest income through an adjustment of the effective yield or upon full pay off of the loan. Conversely, if a loan remains in an MBS trust, we would continue to provide for incurred losses in our “Reserve for guaranty losses.”

Our estimate of the fair value of delinquent loans purchased from MBS trusts is based upon an assessment of what a market participant would pay for the loan at the date of acquisition. Prior to July 2007, we estimated the initial fair value of these loans using internal prepayment, interest rate and credit risk models that incorporated market-based inputs of certain key factors, such as default rates, loss severity and prepayment speeds. Beginning in July 2007, the mortgage markets experienced a number of significant events, including a dramatic widening of credit spreads for mortgage securities backed by higher risk loans, a large number of credit downgrades of higher risk mortgage-related securities, and a severe reduction in market liquidity for certain mortgage-related transactions. As a result of this extreme disruption in the mortgage markets, we

concluded that our model-based estimates of fair value for delinquent loans were no longer aligned with the market prices for these loans. Therefore, we began obtaining indicative market prices from large, experienced dealers and used an average of these market prices to estimate the initial fair value of delinquent loans purchased from MBS trusts. Because these prices reflected significant declines in value due to the disruption in the mortgage markets, we experienced a substantial increase in the SOP 03-3 fair value losses recorded upon the purchase of delinquent loans from MBS trusts.

Other-than-temporary Impairment of Investment Securities

Other-than-temporary impairment occurs when the fair value of an AFS security is below its amortized cost, and we determine that it is probable we will be unable to collect all of the contractual principal and interest payments of a security or we do not have the ability and intent to hold the security until it recovers to its amortized cost. We consider many factors that may involve significant judgment in assessing other-than-temporary impairment, including: the severity and duration of the impairment; recent events specific to the issuer and/or the industry to which the issuer belongs; and external credit ratings, as well as the probability that we will be able to collect all of the contractual amounts due and our ability and intent to hold the securities until recovery.

We generally view changes in the fair value of our AFS securities caused by movements in interest rates to be temporary. When we either decide to sell a security in an unrealized loss position or determine that a security in an unrealized loss position may be sold in future periods prior to recovery of the impairment, we identify the security as other-than-temporarily impaired in the period that we make the decision to sell or determine that the security may be sold. For all other securities in an unrealized loss position resulting primarily from movements in interest rates, we have the positive intent and ability to hold such securities until the earlier of recovery of the unrealized loss amounts or maturity. For securities in an unrealized loss position due to factors other than movements in interest rates, such as the widening of credit spreads, we consider whether it is probable that we will collect all of the contractual cash flows. If we believe it is probable that we will collect all of the contractual cash flows and we have the ability and intent to hold the security until recovery, we consider the impairment to be temporary. If we determine that it is not probable that we will collect all of the contractual cash flows or we do not have the ability and intent to hold the security until recovery, we consider the impairment to be other-than-temporary. We may subsequently recover other-than-temporary impairment amounts we record on securities if we collect all of the contractual principal and interest payments due or if we sell the security at an amount greater than its carrying value.

Allowance for Loan Losses and Reserve for Guaranty Losses

We maintain an allowance for loan losses for loans in our mortgage portfolio classified as held-for-investment. We maintain a reserve for guaranty losses for loans that back Fannie Mae MBS we guarantee and loans that we have guaranteed under long-term standby commitments. We report the allowance for loan losses and reserve for guaranty losses as separate line items in the consolidated balance sheets. These amounts, which we collectively refer to as our loan loss reserves, represent our estimate of probable credit losses inherent in our guaranty book of business. We employ a systematic and consistently applied methodology to determine our best estimate of incurred credit losses and use the same methodology to determine both our allowance for loan losses and reserve for guaranty losses, as the relevant factors affecting credit risk are the same.

To calculate the loan loss reserves for the single-family guaranty book of business, we aggregate homogeneous loans into pools based on common underlying characteristics or cohorts based on similar risk characteristics, such as origination year and seasoning, loan-to-value ratio and loan product type. We calculate our loan loss reserves using internally developed statistical loss curve models that estimate losses based on consideration of a variety of factors affecting loan collectability. To calculate loan loss reserves for the multifamily mortgage credit book of business, we use loss curve models, evaluate loans for impairment based on the risk profile and review repayment prospects and collateral values underlying individual loans. For a more detailed discussion of the methodology used in developing our loan loss reserves, see “Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements—Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies.”

Determining our loan loss reserves is complex and requires judgment by management about the effect of matters that are inherently uncertain. The key estimates and assumptions that affect our loan loss reserves include: loss severity trends; historical default experience; expected proceeds from credit enhancements, such as primary mortgage insurance; collateral valuation; and current economic trends and conditions. Although our loss models include extensive historical loan performance data, our loss reserve process is subject to risks and uncertainties, including reliance on historical loss information that may not represent current conditions. We regularly update our loss forecast models to incorporate current loan performance data, monitor the delinquency and default experience of our homogenous loan pools, and adjust our underlying estimates and assumptions as necessary to reflect our view of current economic and market conditions.

The Chief Risk Office, through a designated Allowance for Loan Losses Oversight Committee, reviews our loss reserve methodology on a quarterly basis and evaluates the adequacy of our loss reserves in the light of the factors described above. The “Provision for credit losses” line item in our consolidated statements of operations represents the amount necessary to adjust the loan loss reserves each period to a level that management believes reflects estimated incurred losses as of the balance sheet date. We record amounts that we deem uncollectible as a charge-off against the loss reserves and record certain recoveries of previously charged off-amounts as an increase to the reserves. Changes in one or more of the estimates or assumptions used to calculate the loan loss reserves could have a material impact on the loan loss reserves and provision for credit losses.

As the housing and mortgage markets deteriorated during 2007, we adjusted certain key assumptions used to calculate our loss reserves to reflect the rise in average loss severities, which more than doubled from 2006, and default rates. Prior to the fourth quarter of 2006, we derived loss severity factors using available historical loss data for the most recent two-year period. We derived our default rate factors based on loss curves developed from available historical loan performance data dating back to 1980. In the fourth quarter of 2006, we shortened our loss severity period assumption to reflect losses based on the previous year rather than a two-year period to reflect a trend of higher loss severities. Given the significant increase in loss severities during 2007 resulting from the decline in home prices, in the fourth quarter of 2007 we further reduced the loss severity period used in determining our loss reserves to reflect average loss severity based on the previous quarter. Additionally, for loans originated in 2006 and 2007, we transitioned to a one-year default curve and subsequently to a one-quarter default curve to reflect the increase in the incidence of early payment defaults on these loans. Statistically, the peak ages for mortgage loan defaults generally have been from two to six years after origination. However, our 2006 and 2007 loan vintages have exhibited a much earlier and higher incidence of default. We provide additional information on our loss reserves and the impact of adjustments to our loss reserves on our provision for credit losses in “Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related Expenses.”

CONSOLIDATED RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

The following discussion of our consolidated results of operations is based on our results for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005. Table 3 presents a condensed summary of our consolidated results of operations for these periods.

Table 3: Condensed Consolidated Results of Operations


										Variance
	For the Year Ended December 31,									2007 vs. 2006						2006 vs. 2005
	2007			2006			2005			$			%			$			%
	(Dollars in millions, except per share amounts)

Net interest income	$	4,581		$	6,752		$	11,505		$	(2,171	)		(32	)%	$	(4,753	)		(41	)%
Guaranty fee income⁽¹⁾		5,071			4,250			4,006			821			19			244			6
Trust management income⁽²⁾		588			111			—			477			430			111			100
Fee and other income⁽¹⁾		751			672			1,445			79			12			(773	)		(53	)

Net revenues	$	10,991		$	11,785		$	16,956		$	(794	)		(7	)%	$	(5,171	)		(30	)%

Losses on certain guaranty contracts		(1,424	)		(439	)		(146	)		(985	)		(224	)		(293	)		(201	)
Investment losses, net		(1,232	)		(683	)		(1,334	)		(549	)		(80	)		651			49
Derivatives fair value losses, net		(4,113	)		(1,522	)		(4,196	)		(2,591	)		(170	)		2,674			64
Losses from partnership investments		(1,005	)		(865	)		(849	)		(140	)		(16	)		(16	)		(2	)
Administrative expenses		(2,669	)		(3,076	)		(2,115	)		407			13			(961	)		(45	)
Credit-related expenses⁽³⁾		(5,012	)		(783	)		(428	)		(4,229	)		(540	)		(355	)		(83	)
Other non-interest expenses⁽⁴⁾		(662	)		(204	)		(317	)		(458	)		(225	)		113			36

Income (loss) before federal income taxes and extraordinary gains (losses)		(5,126	)		4,213			7,571			(9,339	)		(222	)		(3,358	)		(44	)
Benefit (provision) for federal income taxes		3,091			(166	)		(1,277	)		3,257			1,962			1,111			87
Extraordinary gains (losses), net of tax effect		(15	)		12			53			(27	)		(225	)		(41	)		(77	)

Net income (loss)	$	(2,050	)	$	4,059		$	6,347		$	(6,109	)		(151	)%	$	(2,288	)		(36	)%

Diluted earnings (loss) per common share	$	(2.63	)	$	3.65		$	6.01		$	(6.28	)		(172	)%	$	(2.36	)		(39	)%


⁽¹⁾		Certain prior period amounts that previously were included as a component of “Fee and other income” have been reclassified to “Guaranty fee income” to conform to the current period presentation.

⁽²⁾		We began separately reporting the revenues from trust management fees in our consolidated statements of operations effective November 2006. We previously included these revenues as a component of interest income. We have not reclassified prior period amounts to conform to the current period presentation.

⁽³⁾		Consists of provision for credit losses and foreclosed property expense.

⁽⁴⁾		Consists of debt extinguishment gains (losses), net, minority interest in earnings (losses) of consolidated subsidiaries and other expenses.

We recorded a net loss and a diluted loss per share of $2.1 billion and $2.63, respectively, in 2007, compared with net income and diluted earnings per share of $4.1 billion and $3.65 in 2006, and $6.3 billion and $6.01 in 2005. We expect high levels of period-to-period volatility in our results of operations and financial condition as part of our normal business activities. This volatility is primarily due to changes in market conditions that result in periodic fluctuations in the estimated fair value of financial instruments that we mark-to-market through our earnings, including trading securities and derivatives. The estimated fair value of our trading securities and derivatives may fluctuate substantially from period to period because of changes in interest rates, credit spreads and expected interest rate volatility, as well as activity related to these financial instruments. Based on the current composition of our derivatives, we generally expect to report decreases in the aggregate fair value of our derivatives as interest rates decrease.

Our business generates revenues from four principal sources: net interest income, guaranty fee income, trust management income, and fee and other income. Other significant factors affecting our results of operations include losses on certain guaranty contracts, the timing and size of investment gains and losses, changes in the fair value of our derivatives, losses from partnership investments, credit-related expenses and administrative

expenses. We provide a comparative discussion of the effect of our principal revenue sources and other listed items on our consolidated results of operations for the three-year period ended December 31, 2007 below. We also discuss other significant items presented in our consolidated statements of operations.

Net Interest Income

Net interest income, which is the difference between interest income and interest expense, is a primary source of our revenue. Interest income consists of interest on our interest-earning assets, plus income from the accretion of discounts for assets acquired at prices below the principal value, less expense from the amortization of premiums for assets acquired at prices above principal value. Interest expense consists of contractual interest on our interest-bearing liabilities and accretion and amortization of any cost basis adjustments, including premiums and discounts, which arise in conjunction with the issuance of our debt. The amount of interest income and interest expense recognized in the consolidated statements of operations is affected by our investment activity, debt activity, asset yields and our cost of debt. We expect net interest income to fluctuate based on changes in interest rates and changes in the amount and composition of our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities. Table 4 presents an analysis of our net interest income and net interest yield for 2007, 2006 and 2005.

As described below in “Derivatives Fair Value Losses, Net,” we supplement our issuance of debt with interest rate-related derivatives to manage the prepayment and duration risk inherent in our mortgage investments. The effect of these derivatives, in particular the periodic net interest expense accruals on interest rate swaps, is not reflected in net interest income. See “Derivatives Fair Value Losses, Net” for additional information.

Table 4: Analysis of Net Interest Income and Yield


	For the Year Ended December 31,
	2007							2006							2005
			Interest		Average					Interest		Average					Interest		Average
	Average		Income/		Rates			Average		Income/		Rates			Average		Income/		Rates
	Balance⁽¹⁾		Expense		Earned/Paid			Balance⁽¹⁾		Expense		Earned/Paid			Balance⁽¹⁾		Expense		Earned/Paid
	(Dollars in millions)

Interest-earning assets:
Mortgage loans⁽²⁾	$	393,827	$	22,218		5.64	%	$	376,016	$	20,804		5.53	%	$	384,869	$	20,688		5.38	%
Mortgage securities		328,769		18,052		5.49			356,872		19,313		5.41			443,270		22,163		5.00
Non-mortgage securities⁽³⁾		64,204		3,441		5.36			45,138		2,734		6.06			41,369		1,590		3.84
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell⁽⁴⁾		15,405		828		5.37			13,376		641		4.79			6,415		299		4.66
Advances to lenders		6,633		227		3.42			5,365		135		2.52			4,468		104		2.33

Total interest-earning assets	$	808,838	$	44,766		5.53	%	$	796,767	$	43,627		5.48	%	$	880,391	$	44,844		5.09	%

Interest-bearing liabilities:
Short-term debt	$	176,071	$	8,992		5.11	%	$	164,566	$	7,724		4.69	%	$	246,733	$	6,535		2.65	%
Long-term debt		605,498		31,186		5.15			604,555		29,139		4.82			611,827		26,777		4.38
Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase		161		7		4.35			320		12		3.75			1,552		27		1.74

Total interest-bearing liabilities	$	781,730	$	40,185		5.14	%	$	769,441	$	36,875		4.79	%	$	860,112	$	33,339		3.88	%

Impact of net non-interest bearing funding	$	27,108				0.18	%	$	27,326				0.16	%	$	20,279				0.10	%

Net interest income/net interest yield⁽⁵⁾			$	4,581		0.57	%			$	6,752		0.85	%			$	11,505		1.31	%


⁽¹⁾		Average balances for 2007 were calculated based on the average of the amortized cost amounts at the beginning of the year and at the end of each month in the year for mortgage loans, advances to lenders, and short- and long-term debt. Average balances for 2007 for all other categories have been calculated based on a daily average. Average balances for 2006 were calculated based on the average of the amortized cost amounts at the beginning of the year and at the end of each quarter in the year. Average balances for 2005 were calculated based on the average of the amortized cost amounts at the beginning and end of the year.

⁽²⁾		Includes nonaccrual loans with an average balance totaling $6.5 billion, $6.7 billion and $7.4 billion for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Includes interest income related to SOP 03-3 loans of $496 million, $361 million and $123 million for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, primarily from accretion related to


		loans returned to accrual status. Of these amounts recognized into interest income, $80 million, $43 million and $15 million for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, related to the accretion of the fair value discount recorded upon purchase of SOP 03-3 loans.


⁽³⁾		Includes cash equivalents.

⁽⁴⁾		Includes a reverse repurchase agreement with Lehman Brothers with a carrying value and book value of $5.0 billion as of December 31, 2007, pursuant to an existing master repurchase agreement and associated custodial undertaking tri-party agreement, which exceeded 10% of our stockholders’ equity. The amount at risk under the transaction, which had a term of 33 days and matured in January 2008, was $5.0 billion.

⁽⁵⁾		We calculate our net interest yield by dividing our net interest income for the period by the average balance of our total interest-earning assets during the period.

Table 5 presents the total variance, or change, in our net interest income between periods and the extent to which that variance is attributable to: (1) changes in the volume of our interest-earning assets and interest-bearing liabilities or (2) changes in the interest rates of these assets and liabilities.

Table 5: Rate/Volume Analysis of Net Interest Income


	2007 vs. 2006									2006 vs. 2005
	Total			Variance Due to:⁽¹⁾						Total			Variance Due to:⁽¹⁾
	Variance			Volume			Rate			Variance			Volume			Rate
							(Dollars in millions)

Interest income:
Mortgage loans⁽²⁾	$	1,414		$	999		$	415		$	116		$	(482	)	$	598
Mortgage securities		(1,261	)		(1,540	)		279			(2,850	)		(4,570	)		1,720
Non-mortgage securities		707			1,050			(343	)		1,144			156			988
Federal funds sold and securities purchased under agreements to resell		187			104			83			342			333			9
Advances to lenders		92			36			56			31			22			9

Total interest income		1,139			649			490			(1,217	)		(4,541	)		3,324
Interest expense:
Short-term debt		1,268			561			707			1,189			(2,683	)		3,872
Long-term debt		2,047			46			2,001			2,362			(322	)		2,684
Federal funds purchased and securities sold under agreements to repurchase		(5	)		(7	)		2			(15	)		(32	)		17

Total interest expense		3,310			600			2,710			3,536			(3,037	)		6,573

Net interest income	$	(2,171	)	$	49		$	(2,220	)	$	(4,753	)	$	(1,504	)	$	(3,249	)


⁽¹⁾		Combined rate/volume variances are allocated to both rate and volume based on the relative size of each variance.

⁽²⁾		Includes interest income related to SOP 03-3 loans of $496 million, $361 million and $123 million for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, primarily from accretion of loans returned to accrual status. Of these amounts recognized into interest income, $80 million, $43 million and $15 million for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, related to the accretion of the fair value discount recorded upon purchase of SOP 03-3 loans.

Net interest income of $4.6 billion for 2007 decreased 32% from $6.8 billion in 2006, attributable to a 33% (28 basis points) decline in our net interest yield to 0.57%, which was partially offset by a 2% increase in our average interest-earning assets. We continued to experience compression in our net interest yield during 2007, largely attributable to the increase in our short-term and long-term debt costs as we continued to replace, at higher interest rates, maturing debt that we had issued at lower interest rates during the past few years. The overall increase in the average cost of our debt of 35 basis points more than offset a 5 basis point increase in the average yield on our interest-earning assets in 2007. In addition, as discussed below, in November 2006, we began separately reporting the fees we receive from the interest earned on cash flows between the date of remittance of mortgage and other payments to us by servicers and the date of distribution of these payments to MBS certificateholders, which we refer to as float income, as “Trust management income.” We previously reported these amounts as a component of “Interest income.” The reclassification of these fees contributed to the decrease in our net interest yield, resulting in a reduction of approximately 7 basis points in 2007.

Net interest income of $6.8 billion for 2006 decreased by 41% from $11.5 billion in 2005, attributable to a 9% decrease in our average interest-earning assets and a 35% (46 basis points) decline in our net interest yield to 0.85%. The decrease in our average interest-earning assets was due to a lower level of mortgage asset purchases relative to the level of sales and liquidations during 2006. Sales, liquidations and reduced purchases had the net effect of reducing our average interest-earning assets and resulted in a decrease of 1% in the balance of our net mortgage portfolio to $726.1 billion as of December 31, 2006. Lower portfolio balances have the effect of reducing the net interest income generated by our portfolio. We experienced compression in our net interest margin as the cost of our debt increased due to the interest rate environment. As the Federal Reserve raised the short-term Federal Funds target rate by 100 basis points to 5.25%, the highest level since 2001, the yield curve remained flat-to-inverted throughout 2006 and the cost of our short-term debt rose significantly. The overall increase in the average cost of our debt of 91 basis points more than offset a 39 basis point increase in the average yield on our interest-earning assets in 2006.

As discussed below in “Derivatives Fair Value Losses, Net,” we consider the net contractual interest accruals on our interest rate swaps to be part of the cost of funding our mortgage investments. However, we reflect these amounts in our consolidated statements of operations as a component of “Derivatives fair value losses, net.” Although we experienced an increase in the average cost of our debt during 2007, we recorded net contractual interest income on our interest rate swaps totaling $261 million. In comparison, we recorded net contractual interest expense of $111 million and $1.3 billion for 2006 and 2005, respectively. The economic effect of the interest accruals on our interest rate swaps, which is not reflected in the comparative net interest yields presented above, resulted in a reduction in our funding costs of approximately 3 basis points for 2007 and an increase in our funding costs of approximately 2 basis points and 15 basis points for 2006 and 2005, respectively.

Guaranty Fee Income

Guaranty fee income primarily consists of contractual guaranty fees related to Fannie Mae MBS held in our portfolio and held by third-party investors, adjusted for the amortization of upfront fees and impairment of guaranty assets, net of a proportionate reduction in the related guaranty obligation and deferred profit, and impairment of buy-ups.

Guaranty fee income is primarily affected by the amount of outstanding Fannie Mae MBS and our other guaranties and the compensation we receive for providing our guaranty on Fannie Mae MBS and for providing other guaranties. The amount of compensation we receive and the form of payment varies depending on factors such as the risk profile of the securitized loans, the level of credit risk we assume and the negotiated payment arrangement with the lender. Our payment arrangements may be in the form of an upfront payment, an ongoing payment stream from the cash flows of the MBS trusts, or a combination. We typically negotiate a contractual guaranty fee with the lender and collect the fee on a monthly basis based on the contractual fee rate multiplied by the unpaid principal balance of loans underlying a Fannie Mae MBS issuance. In lieu of charging a higher contractual fee rate for loans with greater credit risk, we may require that the lender pay an upfront fee to compensate us for assuming the additional credit risk. We refer to this payment as a risk-based pricing adjustment. We also may adjust the monthly contractual guaranty fee rate so that the pass-through coupon rates on Fannie Mae MBS are in more easily tradable increments of a whole or half percent by making an upfront payment to the lender (“buy-up”) or receiving an upfront payment from the lender (“buy-down”).

As we receive monthly contractual payments for our guaranty obligation, we recognize guaranty fee income. We defer upfront risk-based pricing adjustments and buy-down payments that we receive from lenders and recognize these amounts as a component of guaranty fee income over the expected life of the underlying assets of the related MBS trusts. We record buy-up payments we make to lenders as an asset and reduce the recorded asset as cash flows are received over the expected life of the underlying assets of the related MBS trusts. We assess buy-ups for other-than-temporary impairment and include any impairment recognized as a component of guaranty fee income. The extent to which we amortize deferred payments into income depends on the rate of expected prepayments, which is affected by interest rates. In general, as interest rates decrease, expected prepayment rates increase, resulting in accelerated accretion into income of deferred fee amounts,

which increases our guaranty fee income. Prepayment rates also affect the estimated fair value of buy-ups. Faster than expected prepayment rates shorten the average expected life of the underlying assets of the related MBS trusts, which reduces the value of our buy-up assets and may trigger the recognition of other-than-temporary impairment.

The average effective guaranty fee rate reflects our average contractual guaranty fee rate adjusted for the impact of amortization of deferred amounts and buy-up impairment. Losses on certain guaranty contracts are excluded from the average effective guaranty fee rate; however, the accretion of these losses into income over time is included in guaranty fee income. Table 6 shows the components of our guaranty fee income, our average effective guaranty fee rate, and Fannie Mae MBS activity for 2007, 2006 and 2005. Our guaranty fee income includes $603 million, $329 million and $208 million in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, of accretion of the guaranty obligation related to losses recognized at inception on certain guaranty contracts.

Table 6: Analysis of Guaranty Fee Income and Average Effective Guaranty Fee Rate


	For the Year Ended December 31,																		% Change
	2007						2006						2005						2007 vs.			2006 vs.
	Amount			Rate⁽¹⁾			Amount			Rate⁽¹⁾			Amount			Rate⁽¹⁾			2006			2005
	(Dollars in millions)

Guaranty fee income/average effective guaranty fee rate, excluding certain fair value adjustments and buy-up impairment⁽²⁾	$	5,063			23.7	bp	$	4,288			22.4	bp	$	4,055			22.6	bp		18	%		6	%
Net change in fair value of buy-ups and guaranty assets⁽³⁾		24			0.1			—			—			—			—			—			—
Buy-up impairment		(16	)		(0.1	)		(38	)		(0.2	)		(49	)		(0.3	)		(58	)		(22	)

Guaranty fee income/average effective guaranty fee rate⁽²⁾⁽⁴⁾	$	5,071			23.7	bp	$	4,250			22.2	bp	$	4,006			22.3	bp		19	%		6	%

Average outstanding Fannie Mae MBS and other guaranties⁽⁵⁾	$	2,139,481					$	1,915,457					$	1,797,547						12	%		7	%
Fannie Mae MBS issues⁽⁶⁾		629,607						481,704						510,138						31			(6	)


⁽¹⁾		Presented in basis points and calculated based on guaranty fee income components divided by average outstanding Fannie Mae MBS and other guaranties for each respective period.

⁽²⁾		Certain prior period amounts that previously were included as a component of “Fee and other income” have been reclassified to “Guaranty fee income” to conform to the current period presentation, which resulted in a change in the previously reported effective guaranty fee rates for 2006 and 2005.

⁽³⁾		Consists of the effect of the net change in fair value of buy-ups and guaranty assets from portfolio securitization transactions subsequent to January 1, 2007. We include the net change in fair value of buy-ups and guaranty assets from portfolio securitization transactions in guaranty fee income in our consolidated statements of operations pursuant to our adoption of SFAS No. 155, Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments, an amendment of SFAS 133 and SFAS 140 (“SFAS 155”). We prospectively adopted SFAS 155 effective January 1, 2007. Accordingly, we did not record a fair value adjustment in earnings during 2006 or 2005.

⁽⁴⁾		Losses recognized at inception on certain guaranty contracts, which are excluded from guaranty fee income, are recorded as a component of our guaranty obligation. We accrete a portion of our guaranty obligation, which includes these losses, into income each period in proportion to the reduction in the guaranty asset for payments received. This accretion increases our guaranty fee income and reduces the related guaranty obligation. Our guaranty fee income includes $603 million, $329 million and $208 million in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, of accretion of the guaranty obligation related to losses recognized at inception on certain guaranty contracts.

⁽⁵⁾		Other guaranties includes $41.6 billion, $19.7 billion and $19.2 billion as of December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, related to long-term standby commitments we have issued and credit enhancements we have provided.

⁽⁶⁾		Reflects unpaid principal balance of MBS issued and guaranteed by us, including mortgage loans held in our portfolio that we securitized during the period and MBS issued during the period that we acquired for our portfolio.

The 19% increase in guaranty fee income in 2007 from 2006 was driven by a 12% increase in average outstanding Fannie Mae MBS and other guaranties, and a 7% increase in the average effective guaranty fee

rate to 23.7 basis points from 22.2 basis points. Although mortgage origination volumes fell during 2007, our market share of mortgage-related securities issuances increased due to the shift in the product mix of mortgage originations back to more traditional conforming products, such as 30-year fixed-rate loans, which historically have accounted for the majority of our new business volume, and reduced competition from private-label issuers of mortgage-related securities. We increased our guaranty fee pricing for some loan types during 2007 to reflect the higher risk premium resulting from the overall market increase in mortgage credit risk. The increase in our average effective guaranty fee rate was attributable to these targeted pricing increases on new business and an increase in the accretion of our guaranty obligation and deferred profit into income, due in part to accretion related to losses on certain guaranty contracts.

The 6% increase in guaranty fee income in 2006 from 2005 was driven by a 7% increase in average outstanding Fannie Mae MBS and other guaranties. While our MBS issuances decreased in 2006, our outstanding Fannie Mae MBS increased primarily due to a slower rate of liquidations. Our average effective guaranty fee rate decreased slightly to 22.2 basis points in 2006 from 22.3 basis points in 2005.

We expect to generate higher guaranty fee income for 2008 as a result of the market share gains we experienced in 2007, the targeted guaranty pricing increases and the adverse market delivery charge of 25 basis points for all loans delivered to us, which is effective March 1, 2008.

Trust Management Income

Trust management income consists of the fees we earn as master servicer, issuer and trustee for Fannie Mae MBS. We derive these fees from the interest earned on cash flows between the date of remittance of mortgage and other payments to us by servicers and the date of distribution of these payments to MBS certificateholders, which we refer to as float income. Prior to November 2006, funds received from servicers were maintained with our corporate assets and reported as a component of “Interest income” in our consolidated statements of operations. In November 2006, we made operational changes to segregate these funds from our corporate assets and began separately reporting this compensation as “Trust management income” in our consolidated statements of operations. Trust management income separately reported in our consolidated statements of operations totaled $588 million and $111 million for 2007 and 2006, respectively.

Fee and Other Income

Fee and other income consists of transaction fees, technology fees, multifamily fees and foreign currency exchange gains and losses. Transaction, technology and multifamily fees are largely driven by business volume, while foreign currency exchange gains and losses are driven by fluctuations in exchange rates on our foreign-denominated debt. Table 7 displays the components of fee and other income.

Table 7: Fee and Other Income


	For the Year Ended December 31,
	2007			2006			2005
	(Dollars in millions)

Transaction fees	$	117		$	124		$	136
Technology fees		265			216			223
Multifamily fees		307			292			432
Foreign currency exchange gains (losses)		(190	)		(230	)		625
Other		252			270			29

Fee and other income	$	751		$	672		$	1,445

The $79 million increase in fee and other income in 2007 from 2006 was primarily due to a reduction in foreign currency exchange losses on our foreign-denominated debt and an increase in technology fees resulting from higher business volume. Our foreign currency exchange losses decreased to $190 million in 2007, from $230 million in 2006 largely due to a decrease in the average amount of our outstanding foreign-denominated debt. Our foreign currency exchange gains (losses) are offset by corresponding net (losses) gains on foreign

currency swaps, which are recognized in our consolidated statements of operations as a component of “Derivatives fair value losses, net.” We seek to eliminate our exposure to fluctuations in foreign exchange rates by entering into foreign currency swaps that effectively convert debt denominated in a foreign currency to debt denominated in U.S. dollars. See “Consolidated Results of Operations—Derivatives Fair Value Losses, Net.”

The $773 million decrease in fee and other income in 2006 from 2005 was primarily due to a foreign currency exchange loss of $230 million in 2006, compared with a foreign currency exchange gain of $625 million in 2005. The $625 million foreign currency gain recorded in 2005 stemmed from a strengthening of the U.S. dollar relative to the Japanese yen. In addition, we experienced a $140 million decrease in multifamily fees due to a reduction in refinancing volumes, which were significantly higher in 2005 than in 2006. These decreases were partially offset by a $241 million increase in other fee income primarily attributable to the recognition of defeasance fees on consolidated multifamily loans.

Losses on Certain Guaranty Contracts

Losses on certain guaranty transactions totaled $1.4 billion, $439 million and $146 million in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. As home price appreciation slowed in 2006 and home prices declined and credit conditions deteriorated in 2007, the market’s expectation of future credit risk increased. This change in market conditions increased the estimated risk premium or compensation that a market participant would require to assume our guaranty obligations. As a result, the estimated fair value of our guaranty obligations related to MBS issuances increased, contributing to a higher level of losses at inception on certain of our MBS issuances. Our losses on certain guaranty contracts also were affected by the following during 2007 and 2006:


	•	Lender Flow Transaction Contracts: As the market risk premium increased during 2007 and 2006, we experienced an increase in the losses related to some of our lender flow transaction contracts because we had established our base guaranty fee pricing for a specified time period and could not increase our prices to reflect the increased market risk. To address this in part, we have expanded our use of standard risk-based pricing adjustments that apply to all deliveries of loans with certain risk characteristics.

	•	Affordability Mission—Housing Goals: Our efforts to increase the amount of mortgage financing that we make available to target populations and geographic areas to support our housing goals and subgoals contributed to an increase in losses on certain guaranty contracts in 2007 and in 2006, due to the higher credit risk premium associated with these MBS issuances. In addition, certain contracts that support our affordability mission are priced at a discounted rate.

	•	Contract-Level Pricing: We negotiate guaranty contracts with our customers based upon the overall economics of the transaction; however, the accounting for our guaranty-related assets and liabilities is not determined at the contract level for the substantial majority of our single-family guaranty transactions. Instead, it is determined separately for each individual MBS issuance within a contract. Although we determine losses at an individual MBS issuance level, we largely price our guaranty business on an overall contract basis and establish a single price for all loans included in the contract. Accordingly, a single guaranty transaction may result in some loan pools for which we recognize a loss immediately in earnings and other loan pools for which we record deferred profits that are recognized as a component of guaranty fee income over the life of the loans underlying the MBS issuance.

The losses recognized at inception of certain guaranty contracts will be accreted into earnings over time as a component of guaranty fee income, as described in “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates—Fair Value of Financial Instruments—Fair Value of Guaranty Assets and Guaranty Obligations—Effect on Losses on Certain Guaranty Contracts.” Our guaranty fee income includes $603 million, $329 million and $208 million in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, of accretion of the guaranty obligation related to losses recognized at inception on certain guaranty contracts.

Losses on certain guaranty contracts do not reflect our estimate of incurred credit losses in our guaranty book of business. Instead, our estimate of the probable credit losses incurred in our guaranty book of business is reflected in our combined allowance for loan losses and reserve for guaranty losses. Actual credit losses are

recorded as charges against our loss reserves. See “Credit-Related Expenses” below for a discussion of our current year provision for credit losses and “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” for illustrations of how losses recorded at inception on certain guaranty contracts affect our earnings over time and how credit-related expenses and actual credit losses related to our guaranties are recorded in our consolidated financial statements. We expect that the substantial majority of our MBS guaranty transactions will generate positive economic returns over the lives of the related MBS because, based on our experience and modeled assessments, we expect our guaranty fees to exceed our incurred credit losses.

Investment Losses, Net

Investment losses, net includes other-than-temporary impairment on AFS securities, lower-of-cost-or-market adjustments on HFS loans, gains and losses recognized on the securitization of loans or securities from our portfolio and the sale of AFS securities, gains and losses on trading securities, and other investment losses. Investment gains and losses may fluctuate significantly from period to period depending upon our portfolio investment and securitization activities, changes in market conditions that may result in fluctuations in the fair value of trading securities, and other-than-temporary impairment. We recorded investment losses of $1.2 billion, $683 million and $1.3 billion in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. Table 8 details the components of investment gains and losses for each year.

Table 8: Investment Gains (Losses), Net


	For the Year Ended December 31,
	2007			2006			2005
	(Dollars in millions)

Other-than-temporary impairment on AFS securities⁽¹⁾	$	(814	)	$	(853	)	$	(1,246	)
Lower-of-cost-or-market adjustments on held-for-sale loans		(103	)		(47	)		(114	)
Gains (losses) on Fannie Mae portfolio securitizations, net		(403	)		152			259
Gains on sales of AFS securities, net		703			106			252
Gains (losses) on trading securities, net		(365	)		8			(442	)
Other investment losses, net		(250	)		(49	)		(43	)

Investment losses, net	$	(1,232	)	$	(683	)	$	(1,334	)


⁽¹⁾		Excludes other-than-temporary impairment on guaranty assets and buy-ups as these amounts are recognized as a component of guaranty fee income.

The $549 million increase in investment losses in 2007 over 2006 was attributable to the following:


	•	A decrease of $39 million in other-than-temporary impairment on AFS securities. We recognized other-than-temporary impairment of $814 million in 2007. Approximately $160 million of the other-than-temporary impairment recognized in 2007 related to certain subprime private-label securities where we concluded that it was no longer probable that we would collect all of the contractual principal and interest amounts due. In addition, we recorded $620 million in other-than-temporary impairment losses on certain investments in our mortgage portfolio and liquid investment portfolio that were impaired because we no longer had the intent to hold these securities until recovery of the impairment. We reclassified these investments as trading effective January 1, 2008 with our adoption of SFAS 159. In comparison, we recognized $853 million in other-than-temporary impairment in 2006 due to declines in the fair value of certain securities that we had designated for sale.

	•	An increase of $42 million in net gains related to the sale of AFS securities and Fannie Mae portfolio securitizations. The increase in net gains was primarily attributable to the recovery in value of securities we sold that we had previously written down due to other-than-temporary impairment. We sold securities totaling $69.0 billion and $52.7 billion in 2007 and 2006, respectively. During the fourth quarter of 2007, we actively sought to sell securities in a gain position as part of our overall capital management efforts. In one transaction, we sold $1.9 billion of securities issued by an MBS trust in which we held 100% ownership interest. This sale triggered the derecognition of $17.3 billion of loans classified as held for


		investment from our consolidated balance sheets and the recognition of $15.4 billion of securities, which we designated as trading. Also, during the fourth quarter of 2007, we resecuritized $9.2 billion of subprime private-label securities, which resulted in a loss that was primarily attributable to the impact of the significant widening of credit spreads during the year on the guaranty obligation we recorded in conjunction with this resecuritization.


	•	An increase of $373 million in losses on trading securities. This increase in net losses was largely due to the significant widening of credit spreads during 2007, which reduced the fair value of our trading securities. In addition, we began designating an increasingly large portion of the securities we purchase as trading securities, particularly in the fourth quarter of 2007. Our portfolio of trading securities increased to $64.0 billion as of December 31, 2007, from $11.5 billion as of December 31, 2006. This change in practice was partly driven by our adoption of SFAS No. 155, Accounting for Certain Hybrid Financial Instruments, an amendment of SFAS 133 and SFAS 140 (“SFAS 155”), which requires us to evaluate securities for embedded derivatives unless they are designated as trading securities. This change in practice is also intended to offset some of the volatility in our earnings that results from changes in the fair value of our derivatives. Because a significant portion of our derivatives consists of pay-fixed swaps, we expect the aggregate estimated fair value of our derivatives to decline and result in derivatives losses when interest rates decline.

Generally, we expect changes in the fair value of our trading securities to move inversely to changes in the fair value of our derivatives, resulting in an offset against a portion of our derivatives gains and losses. However, because the fair value of our derivatives and trading securities are affected not only by interest rates, but also by factors such as volatility and changes in credit spreads, changes in the fair value of our trading securities may not always move inversely to changes in the fair value of our derivatives. Consequently, the gains and losses on our trading securities may not offset the gains and losses on our derivatives. For example, the decline in interest rates during the second half of 2007 contributed to an increase in the fair value of our trading securities. This increase, however, was more than offset by a decrease in fair value resulting from the significant widening of credit spreads, particularly related to private-label mortgage-related securities backed by Alt-A and subprime loans.


	•	An increase of $201 million in other investment losses, which was attributable to the $1.9 billion sale of securities that triggered the derecognition of $17.3 billion of loans classified as held for investment and the recognition of $15.4 billion of securities, as described above. In conjunction with the recognition of the $15.4 billion of securities on our consolidated balance sheets, we also were required to record at fair value a related guaranty asset and guaranty obligation, which resulted in a loss.

The $651 million decrease in investment losses, net in 2006 from 2005 was attributable to the following:


	•	A decrease of $393 million in other-than-temporary impairment on AFS securities. We recognized other-than-temporary impairment of $853 million in 2006, compared with $1.2 billion in 2005. The other-than-temporary impairment of $853 million in 2006 resulted from continued interest rate increases in the first half of 2006, which caused the fair value of certain securities to decline below carrying value. Because we previously recognized significant other-than-temporary amounts on certain securities in 2005 that reduced the carrying value of these securities, the amount of other-than-temporary impairment recognized in 2006 declined relative to 2005.

	•	A shift to a net gain of $8 million in 2006 on trading securities from a net loss of $442 million in 2005. The net gain in 2006 reflects an increase in the fair value of trading securities due to a decrease in implied volatility during the year. The vast majority of these gains, however, were offset by losses that resulted from the general increase in interest rates during the year. The net loss in 2005 resulted from general increases in interest rates during the year and a widening of option-adjusted spreads.

Derivatives Fair Value Losses, Net

Table 9 presents, by type of derivative instrument, the fair value gains and losses on our derivatives for 2007, 2006 and 2005. Table 9 also includes an analysis of the components of derivatives fair value gains and losses

attributable to net contractual interest accruals on our interest rate swaps, the net change in the fair value of terminated derivative contracts through the date of termination and the net change in the fair value of outstanding derivative contracts. The five-year swap interest rate, which is shown below, is a key reference interest rate affecting the estimated fair value of our derivatives.

Table 9: Derivatives Fair Value Gains (Losses), Net


	For the Year Ended December 31,
	2007			2006			2005
	(Dollars in millions)

Risk management derivatives:
Swaps:
Pay-fixed	$	(12,065	)	$	2,181		$	549
Receive-fixed		5,928			(390	)		(1,118	)
Basis		91			26			(2	)
Foreign currency⁽¹⁾		111			105			(673	)
Swaptions:
Pay-fixed		(196	)		(1,148	)		(1,393	)
Receive-fixed		1,956			(2,480	)		(2,071	)
Interest rate caps		5			100			283
Other⁽²⁾		12			6			8

Risk management derivatives fair value losses, net		(4,158	)		(1,600	)		(4,417	)
Mortgage commitment derivatives fair value gains, net⁽³⁾		45			78			221

Total derivatives fair value losses, net	$	(4,113	)	$	(1,522	)	$	(4,196	)

Risk management derivatives fair value gains (losses) attributable to:
Net contractual interest income (expense) accruals on interest rate swaps	$	261		$	(111	)	$	(1,325	)
Net change in fair value of terminated derivative contracts from end of prior year to date of termination		(264	)		(176	)		(1,434	)
Net change in fair value of outstanding derivative contracts, including derivative contracts entered into during the period		(4,155	)		(1,313	)		(1,658	)

Risk management derivatives fair value losses, net⁽⁴⁾	$	(4,158	)	$	(1,600	)	$	(4,417	)


	2007			2006			2005

5-year swap rate:
Quarter ended March 31		4.99	%		5.31	%		4.63	%
Quarter ended June 30		5.50			5.65			4.15
Quarter ended September 30		4.87			5.08			4.66
Quarter ended December 31		4.19			5.10			4.88


⁽¹⁾		Includes the effect of net contractual interest expense of approximately $59 million, $71 million and $46 million for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. The change in fair value of foreign currency swaps excluding this item resulted in a net gain (loss) of $170 million, $176 million and $(627) million for 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively.

⁽²⁾		Includes MBS options, forward starting debt, swap credit enhancements and mortgage insurance contracts.

⁽³⁾		The subsequent recognition in our consolidated statements of operations associated with cost basis adjustments that we record upon the settlement of mortgage commitments accounted for as derivatives resulted in income of approximately $228 million and $14 million for 2007 and 2006, respectively, and expense of $870 million for 2005. These amounts are reflected in our consolidated statements of operations as a component of either “Net interest income” or “Investment losses, net.”

⁽⁴⁾		Reflects net derivatives fair value losses recognized in the consolidated statements of operations, excluding mortgage commitments.

Our derivatives consist primarily of OTC contracts and commitments to purchase and sell mortgage assets that are valued using a variety of valuation models. Because our derivatives consist of net pay-fixed swaps, we expect the aggregate estimated fair value of our derivatives to decline and result in derivatives losses when interest rates decline because we are paying a higher fixed rate of interest relative to the current interest rate

environment. Conversely, we expect the aggregate fair value to increase when interest rates rise. In addition, we have a significant amount of purchased options where the time value of the upfront premium we pay for these options decreases due to the passage of time relative to the expiration date of these options, which results in derivatives fair value losses.

As shown in Table 9 above, we recorded net contractual interest income on our interest rate swaps in 2007 and net contractual interest expense in 2006 and 2005. Although these amounts are included in the net derivatives fair value losses recognized in our consolidated statements of operations, we consider the interest accruals on our interest rate swaps to be part of the cost of funding our mortgage investments. If we had elected to fund our mortgage investments with long-term fixed-rate debt instead of a combination of short-term variable-rate debt and interest rate swaps, the income or expense related to our interest rate swap accruals would have been included as a component of interest expense instead of as a component of our derivatives fair value losses.

The primary factors affecting changes in the fair value of our derivatives include the following.


	•	Changes in the level of interest rates: Because our derivatives portfolio as of December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005 predominately consisted of pay-fixed swaps, we typically reported declines in fair value as swap interest rates decreased and increases in fair value as swap interest rates increased. As part of our economic hedging strategy, these derivatives, in combination with our debt issuances, are intended to offset changes in the fair value of our mortgage assets, which tend to increase in value when interest rates decrease and, conversely, decrease in value when interest rates rise.

	•	Implied interest rate volatility: We purchase option-based derivatives to economically hedge the embedded prepayment option in our mortgage investments. A key variable in estimating the fair value of option-based derivatives is implied volatility, which reflects the market’s expectation about the future volatility of interest rates. Assuming all other factors are held equal, including interest rates, a decrease in implied volatility would reduce the fair value of our derivatives and an increase in implied volatility would increase the fair value.

	•	Changes in our derivative activity: As interest rates change, we are likely to take actions to rebalance our portfolio to manage our interest rate exposure. As interest rates decrease, expected mortgage prepayments are likely to increase, which reduces the duration of our mortgage investments. In this scenario, we generally will rebalance our existing portfolio to manage this risk by terminating pay-fixed swaps or adding receive-fixed swaps, which shortens the duration of our liabilities. Conversely, when interest rates increase and the duration of our mortgage assets increases, we are likely to rebalance our existing portfolio by adding pay-fixed swaps that have the effect of extending the duration of our liabilities. We also add derivatives in various interest rate environments to hedge the risk of incremental mortgage purchases that we are not able to accomplish solely through our issuance of debt securities.

	•	Time value of purchased options: Intrinsic value and time value are the two primary components of an option’s price. The intrinsic value is the amount that can be immediately realized by exercising the option—the amount by which the market rate exceeds or is below the strike rate, such that the option is in-the-money. The time value of an option is the amount by which the price of an option exceeds its intrinsic value. Time decay refers to the diminishing value of an option over time as less time remains to exercise the option. We generally have recorded aggregate net fair value losses on our derivatives due to the time decay of our purchased options.

Derivatives losses of $4.1 billion for 2007 increased from 2006 due to the significant decline in swap interest rates during the second half of the year, which resulted in fair value losses on our pay-fixed swaps that exceeded the fair value gains on our receive-fixed swaps. As shown in Table 9 above, the 5-year swap interest rate fell by 131 basis points to 4.19% as of December 31, 2007 from 5.50% as of June 30, 2007. We experienced partially offsetting fair value gains on our option-based derivatives due to an increase in implied volatility that more than offset the combined effect the time decay of these options and the decrease in swap rates during the second half of 2007.

Derivatives losses of $1.5 billion for 2006 decreased from 2005 due to the upward trend in swap interest rates during the year, which resulted in fair value gains on our pay-fixed swaps. These gains were offset by fair value losses on our receive-fixed swaps resulting from the increase in swap interest rates. We also experienced fair value losses on our option-based derivatives due to the combined effect of the time decay of these options and a decrease in implied volatility.

While changes in the estimated fair value of our derivatives resulted in net expense in each reported year, we incurred this expense as part of our overall interest rate risk management strategy to economically hedge the prepayment and duration risk of our mortgage investments. The derivatives fair value gains and losses recognized in our consolidated statements of operations should be examined in the context of our overall interest rate risk management objectives and strategy, including the economic objective of our use of various types of derivative instruments. We provide additional information on our use of derivatives to manage interest rate risk, including changes in our derivatives activity and the outstanding notional amounts, and the effect on our consolidated financial statements in “Consolidated Balance Sheet Analysis—Derivative Instruments” and “Risk Management—Interest Rate Risk Management and Other Market Risks—Interest Rate Risk Management Strategies.”

Losses from Partnership Investments

Our partnership investments, which primarily include investments in LIHTC partnerships as well as investments in other affordable rental and for-sale housing partnerships, totaled approximately $11.0 billion and $10.6 billion as of December 31, 2007 and 2006, respectively. We consider these investments to be a significant channel for advancing our affordable housing mission. We provide additional information about these investments in “Part I—Item 1—Business—Business Segments—Housing and Community Development Business.”

Losses from partnership investments, net totaled $1.0 billion, $865 million and $849 million in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively. In 2007, we experienced an increase in losses on our for-sale housing partnership investments due to the deterioration in the housing market. In addition, we increased our investment in affordable rental housing partnership investments, which resulted in an increase in the net operating losses related to these investments. These losses were partially offset by gains from the sale of two portfolios of investments in LIHTC partnerships totaling approximately $930 million in potential future tax credits. Together, these equity interests represented approximately 11% of our overall LIHTC portfolio. We expect that we may sell LIHTC investments in the future if we believe that the economic return from the sale will be greater than the benefit we would receive from continuing to hold these investments. In 2006, we experienced in increase in losses primarily due to increases in the amount we invested in LIHTC partnerships. For more information on tax credits associated with our LIHTC investments, refer to “Provision for Federal Income Taxes” below.

Administrative Expenses

Administrative expenses include ongoing operating costs, such as salaries and employee benefits, professional services, occupancy costs and technology expenses. Administrative expenses also include costs associated with our efforts to return to timely financial reporting, which occurred on November 9, 2007, with the filing of our Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2007. Expenses included in our efforts to return to timely financial reporting include costs of restatement and other costs associated with the restatement, such as regulatory examinations and investigations, litigation related to the restatement and remediation costs. Table 10 details the components of these costs.

Table 10: Administrative Expenses


							% Change
	For the Year Ended December 31,						2007			2006
	2007		2006		2005		vs. 2006			vs. 2005
	(Dollars in millions)

Ongoing operating costs	$	2,029	$	2,013	$	1,546		1	%		30	%
Restatement and related regulatory expenses⁽¹⁾		640		1,063		569		(40	)		87

Total administrative expenses	$	2,669	$	3,076	$	2,115		(13	)%		45	%


⁽¹⁾		Includes costs of restatement and related regulatory examinations, investigations and litigation. Also includes remediation costs.

The decrease in administrative expenses in 2007 from 2006 was due to a significant reduction in restatement and related regulatory expenses. This reduction was partially offset by an increase in our ongoing operating costs, resulting from costs associated with an early retirement program and various involuntary severance initiatives implemented in 2007, as well as costs associated with the significant investment we have made to enhance our organizational structure and systems.

The increase in administrative expenses in 2006 from 2005 was primarily due to costs associated with our efforts to return to timely financial reporting. In addition, we experienced an increase in our ongoing operating costs during 2006 due to an increase in our hiring efforts and staffing levels, as we redesigned our organizational structure to enhance our risk governance framework and strengthen our internal controls.

Beginning in January 2007, we undertook a thorough review of our costs as part of a broad reengineering initiative to increase productivity and lower administrative costs. As a result of this effort, we estimate that we will maintain our ongoing operating costs at the $2.0 billion level we achieved in 2007 for 2008. Our ongoing operating costs, or “run rate,” excludes the costs associated with our efforts to return to current financial reporting and also excludes various costs, such as litigation and remediation costs, that we do not expect to incur on a regular basis. We therefore do not consider these expenses to be part of our run rate. Although we are current in our financial reporting, we continue to expect to incur some level of restatement and related regulatory expenses, such as costs related to regulatory examinations, investigations and litigation.

Credit-Related Expenses

This section discusses the credit-related expenses that are reflected in our consolidated statements of operations, how the loss reserves recorded in our consolidated balance sheets affect our credit-related expenses and the credit loss performance metrics we use to evaluate our historical credit loss performance.

The credit-related expenses included in our consolidated statements of operations consist of the provision for credit losses and foreclosed property expense (income). Our credit-related expenses totaled $5.0 billion, $783 million and $428 million in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, reflecting an increase of $4.2 billion in 2007 and $355 million in 2006. Table 11 details the components of our credit-related expenses. We discuss each of these components below.

Table 11: Credit-Related Expenses


	For the Year Ended December 31,
	2007		2006		2005
	(Dollars in millions)

Provision attributable to guaranty book of business	$	3,200	$	385	$	190
Provision attributable to SOP 03-3 fair value losses		1,364		204		251

Total provision for credit losses		4,564		589		441
Foreclosed property expense (income)		448		194		(13	)

Credit-related expenses	$	5,012	$	783	$	428

The $4.2 billion increase in our credit-related expenses in 2007 was due to the substantial increase of $2.8 billion in our provision for credit losses attributable to our guaranty book of business and an increase of $1.2 billion in our provision for credit losses attributable to SOP 03-3 fair value losses. In addition, foreclosed property expense increased by $254 million, reflecting an increase in our inventory of foreclosed properties and rapidly declining sales prices on foreclosed properties, particularly in the Midwest, which accounted for the majority of the increase in our foreclosed properties in 2007 and 2006.

The $355 million increase in credit-related expenses in 2006 was attributable to an increase in our provision for credit losses due to a trend of increasing charge-offs resulting from the significant slowdown in home price appreciation and continued economic weakness in the Midwest. Foreclosed property expense also increased in 2006, reflecting an increase in the level of foreclosures, as well as losses on foreclosed properties, particularly in the Midwest.

Provision Attributable to Guaranty Book of Business

Our loss reserves provide for probable credit losses inherent in our guaranty book of business as of each balance sheet date. As discussed in “Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates—Allowance for Loan Losses and Reserve for Guaranty Losses,” we build our loss reserves through the provision for credit losses for losses that we believe have been incurred and will eventually be reflected over time in our charge-offs. When we determine that a loan is uncollectible, we record the charge-off against our loss reserves. We record recoveries of previously charged-off amounts as a credit to our loss reserves. Table 12, which summarizes changes in our loss reserves for the five-year period ended December 31, 2007, details the provision for credit losses recognized in our consolidated statements of operations each period and the charge-offs recorded against our loss reserves.

Table 12: Allowance for Loan Losses and Reserve for Guaranty Losses


	As of December 31,
	2007			2006			2005			2004			2003
	(Dollars in millions)

Changes in loss reserves:
Allowance for loan losses:
Beginning balance	$	340		$	302		$	349		$	290		$	216
Provision		658			174			124			174			187
Charge-offs⁽¹⁾		(407	)		(206	)		(267	)		(321	)		(270	)
Recoveries		107			70			96			131			72
Increase from the reserve for guaranty losses⁽²⁾		—			—			—			75			85

Ending balance⁽³⁾	$	698		$	340		$	302		$	349		$	290

Reserve for guaranty losses:
Beginning balance	$	519		$	422		$	396		$	313		$	223
Provision		3,906			415			317			178			178
Charge-offs⁽⁴⁾		(1,782	)		(336	)		(302	)		(24	)		(7	)
Recoveries		50			18			11			4			4
Decrease to the allowance for loan losses⁽²⁾		—			—			—			(75	)		(85	)

Ending balance	$	2,693		$	519		$	422		$	396		$	313

Combined loss reserves:
Beginning balance	$	859		$	724		$	745		$	603		$	439
Provision		4,564			589			441			352			365
Charge-offs⁽¹⁾⁽⁴⁾		(2,189	)		(542	)		(569	)		(345	)		(277	)
Recoveries		157			88			107			135			76

Ending balance⁽³⁾	$	3,391		$	859		$	724		$	745		$	603

Allocation of loss reserves:
Balance at end of each period attributable to:
Single-family	$	3,318		$	785		$	647		$	644		$	516
Multifamily		73			74			77			101			87

Total	$	3,391		$	859		$	724		$	745		$	603

Loss reserve ratios:
Percent of combined allowance and reserve for guaranty losses in each category to related guaranty book of business:⁽⁵⁾
Single-family		0.13	%		0.03	%		0.03	%		0.03	%		0.03	%
Multifamily		0.05			0.06			0.06			0.09			0.08
Total		0.12			0.04			0.03			0.03			0.03


⁽¹⁾		Includes accrued interest of $128 million, $39 million, $24 million, $29 million and $29 million for the years ended December 31, 2007, 2006, 2005, 2004 and 2003, respectively.

⁽²⁾		Includes decrease in reserve for guaranty losses and increase in allowance for loan losses due to the purchase of delinquent loans from MBS trusts. Effective with our adoption of SOP 03-3 on January 1, 2005, we record seriously delinquent loans purchased from Fannie Mae MBS trusts at the lower of acquisition cost or fair value at the date of purchase. We no longer record an increase in the allowance for loan losses and reduction in the reserve for guaranty losses when we purchase these loans.

⁽³⁾		Includes $39 million, $28 million and $22 million as of December 31, 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, for acquired loans subject to the application of SOP 03-3.

⁽⁴⁾		Includes charges recorded at the date of acquisition of $1.4 billion, $204 million and $251 million in 2007, 2006 and 2005, respectively, for acquired loans subject to the application of SOP 03-3 where the acquisition cost exceeded the fair value of the acquired loan.

⁽⁵⁾		Represents ratio of combined allowance and reserve balance by loan type to the guaranty book of business by loan type.

The continued deterioration in the housing market, including weak economic conditions in the Midwest and home price declines on a national basis, particularly in Florida, California, Nevada and Arizona, has resulted in a significant increase in serious delinquency rates and contributed to higher default rates and loan loss severities. Our single-family serious delinquency rate increased to 0.98% as of December 31, 2007, from 0.65% as of December 31, 2006. The number of properties acquired through foreclosure increased by 34% in 2007 over 2006, and our loan loss severity more than doubled from 2006, resulting in a significant increase in charge-offs. Based on these conditions, we recorded a $3.2 billion provision for credit losses attributable to our guaranty book of business to increase our loss reserves to $3.4 billion, or 0.12% of our guaranty book of business, as of December 31, 2007.

In comparison, we recorded a $385 million provision for credit losses attributable to our guaranty book of business in 2006, and our loss reserves totaled $859 million, or 0.04% of our guaranty book of business, as of December 31, 2006.

Provision Attributable to SOP 03-3 Fair Value Losses

We experienced a substantial increase in the SOP 03-3 fair value losses recorded upon the purchase of seriously delinquent loans from MBS trusts in 2007 due to the significant disruption in the mortgage market and severe reduction in market liquidity for certain mortgage products, such as delinquent loans. As indicated in Table 11 above, SOP 03-3 fair value losses increased to $1.4 billion in 2007, from $204 million and $251 million in 2006 and 2005, respectively.

Table 13 provides a quarterly comparison of the average market price, as a percentage of the unpaid principal balance and accrued interest, of seriously delinquent loans purchased from MBS trusts for 2007 and 2006 and additional information related to these loans.

Table 13: Statistics on Seriously Delinquent Loans Purchased from MBS Trusts Subject to SOP 03-3


	2007 Quarter Ended												2006 Quarter Ended
	Dec 31			Sept 30			June 30			March 31			Dec 31			Sept 30			June 30			March 31

Average market price⁽¹⁾		70	%		72	%		93	%		94	%		95	%		95	%		95	%		96	%
Unpaid principal balance and accrued interest of loans purchased (dollars in millions)	$	1,832		$	2,349		$	881		$	1,057		$	899		$	714		$	759		$	2,022
Number of seriously delinquent loans purchased		11,997			15,924			6,396			8,009			7,637			6,344			6,953			17,039


⁽¹⁾		The value of primary mortgage insurance is included as a component of the average market price.


PART III			160
	Item 10.	Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance	160
	Item 11.	Executive Compensation	160
	Item 12.	Security Ownership of Certain Beneficial Owners and Management and Related Stockholder Matters	160
	Item 13.	Certain Relationships and Related Transactions, and Director Independence	160
	Item 14.	Principal Accountant Fees and Services	160
PART IV			161
	Item 15.	Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules	161
INDEX TO EXHIBITS			E-1
INDEX TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS			F-1


Votes FOR:			229,905,051
Votes AGAINST:			449,980,640
Abstentions:			44,997,811
Broker non-votes:			109,009,795


Votes FOR:			263,028,695
Votes AGAINST:			455,359,220
Abstentions:			6,495,587
Broker non-votes:			109,009,795