Saving Fannie

I've been worried about Fannie Mae for a long time. A few months ago I wrote a column about it. More than 10 years ago, when it was riding high, I was worried too. Now I'm really worried. As of 11 a.m. EDT, Fannie shares were off by 32 percent and selling for under $9 a share. Within the past year, shares had sold for over $72 a share.

Fannie—and its sister company, Freddie Mac—always seemed to me to be built on the worst of propositions: private profit and socialized risk. What was supposed to be a nimble hybrid, the ultimate public-private partnership, represented the worst of both worlds.

With the collapse of Fannie stock this morning, the question is what to do now. Henry Paulson did the right thing this morning, saying: "Our primary focus is supporting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in their current form. We are maintaining a dialog with regulators and with the companies." That seems like the right response to the sell-off, which seems spurred by the New York Times' irresponsible—I think—A1 placement of a story that regulators are discussing in a hypothetical way how to handle a government takeover of the mortgage giants.

First, Congress really needs to move on a housing bill. It will help the ailing housing market, which is the best thing that could happen to Fannie. It will strengthen Fannie regulation giving more confidence to the markets. And it will allow Fannie, should it fall, to go into a receivership that would prevent its losses from spinning further out of control.

Second, we need a Bear Stearns-like weekend of phone calls with Fannie's regulators from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, the Treasury, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Fed, and everyone to be sure they're on the same page come next week. Mind you, I don't think Fannie will collapse. It's adequately capitalized by most standards, and today's sell-off seems to stem more from the Times' decision on where to place the story. But a panic is a panic, and it makes sense for everyone to be ready to go should we be heading into the shitter.

Third, we gotta start to talk about a longer-term solution for Fannie, something that will, when we get past the housing mess, put it on a stronger footing. I like the long-term privatization ideas of Burt Ely, frequent Fannie critic, but that's a longer-term discussion, and it may be that the hybrid model can continue to work.

Fourth, the myriad figures who have checked in at Fannie Mae and built it into a Washington lobbying behemoth ought to be asked their opinion on what to do now. There's Jim Johnson, who recently resigned from Barack Obama's veep search committee after it was revealed he'd gotten a favorable mortgage from Countrywide. There's Franklin Raines. But also Tom Nides of Morgan Stanley (a friend, I should say), Jamie Gorelick at Wilmer Hale, Arne Christensen (former top aide to Newt Gingrich), Tom Donilon (at O'Melveny & Myers), Michelle Davis at Treasury, John Buckley, etc. These folks did quite well at Fannie when it was on a roll. Now that it's not, we need to hear from them. Let's hear from the board including former FBI Director Louis Freeh and current executives like CEO Daniel Mudd and general counsel Beth Wilkinson, wife NBC's David Gregory.

Fifth, the presidential candidates need to weigh in on what to do about Fannie. They've offered some thoughts. John McCain has said it can't be allowed to fail. Barack Obama has supported allowing Fannie to sell a wider variety of mortgages. They need to offer long-term plans.

Fannie and the world of G.S.E.'s, government-sponsored enterprises, once only attracted the attention of finance nerds or investors who liked a sure thing. Now that it's not a sure thing, everyone needs to get involved.

Photo credit: Ken Cedeno/Bloomberg News/Landov

Get a daily fix of how politicians, business leaders, and others in the news are faring with the Portfolio.com Capital Index.