Privatizing it requires dedication 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
Por segunda vez, la administración Trump intenta devolver al sector privado a Fannie Mae y Freddie Mac, dos gigantes hipotecarios que llevan casi dos décadas bajo tutela gubernamental. Pero la decisión de encargar esa misión a un funcionario que ahora también dirige las agencias de inteligencia del país ha sembrado dudas sobre si la voluntad política alcanzará para sostener un proceso que exige atención total. En el trasfondo, millones de compradores de vivienda esperan una respuesta que el mercado ya parece haber anticipado: las acciones han caído un 40% este año, y la promesa de privatización se aleja en el horizonte.
- Trump ha asignado a Bill Pulte, el funcionario encargado de privatizar Fannie Mae y Freddie Mac, un segundo cargo como director interino de Inteligencia Nacional, dividiendo su atención entre la vivienda y el espionaje.
- Expertos en vivienda y finanzas advierten que una privatización mal ejecutada podría elevar las tasas hipotecarias en un momento en que los precios de las casas están cerca de máximos históricos y el acceso a la vivienda ya es crítico.
- El mercado no ha esperado a los analistas: las acciones de ambas empresas han caído cerca de un 40% en lo que va del año, y el anuncio del doble cargo de Pulte aceleró aún más esa caída.
- Inversores que apostaron fuerte por la privatización, incluido el multimillonario Bill Ackman, ven deteriorarse sus posiciones mientras en foros de Reddit el optimismo ha dado paso al arrepentimiento y la resignación.
- La Casa Blanca, la FHFA y las propias empresas se han negado a ofrecer un calendario actualizado, y Trump solo ha dicho que 'no hay prisa', dejando el proceso en un limbo que pocos saben cómo resolver.
Donald Trump ya intentó privatizar Fannie Mae y Freddie Mac durante su primer mandato y no lo logró. Ahora lo intenta de nuevo, pero ha tomado una decisión que muchos interpretan como una señal de que la prioridad ha cambiado: el hombre a cargo del proceso, Bill Pulte, director de la Agencia Federal de Financiamiento de Vivienda, ha sido nombrado también director interino de Inteligencia Nacional, lo que lo pone al frente de la CIA y la NSA al mismo tiempo.
Pulte, nieto del fundador de una de las mayores constructoras de viviendas del país, enfrenta ahora la tarea casi imposible de conducir simultáneamente dos de las responsabilidades más complejas del gobierno federal. Susan Wachter, profesora de finanzas e inmuebles en la Wharton School, lo resumió sin rodeos: privatizar estas empresas requiere dedicación las 24 horas, los siete días de la semana. Cuando se le preguntó a Trump por el calendario, respondió desde el Air Force One que no había prisa.
Las consecuencias de una privatización mal diseñada no son abstractas. Fannie y Freddie no prestan dinero directamente, pero compran hipotecas, las reempaquetan y las venden a inversores, manteniendo el flujo de capital que permite a los bancos ofrecer tasas más bajas. Si al privatizarlas se elimina la garantía implícita del gobierno, los inversores exigirán mayores rendimientos para compensar el riesgo, y ese costo terminaría recayendo sobre los compradores de vivienda, en un momento en que los precios ya están cerca de máximos históricos y las tasas hipotecarias siguen elevadas.
El analista financiero Jaret Seiberg fue directo en una nota a clientes: los obstáculos para salir de la tutela gubernamental ya eran formidables antes de que Pulte asumiera el segundo cargo. Con su atención dividida, no ve cómo podrían superarse. El mercado parece coincidir: las acciones de ambas empresas han caído alrededor de un 40% en lo que va del año. Inversores que habían apostado fuerte por la privatización, incluido el multimillonario Bill Ackman, observan cómo sus posiciones se deterioran. En los foros de Reddit donde pequeños inversores debaten el tema, el optimismo de meses atrás ha cedido paso a la resignación.
Donald Trump tried once before to wrest Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from government control. He failed. Now, as he attempts the same feat in his second term, he has handed the man leading that effort a second job—one that has nothing to do with housing and everything to do with running the nation's spy agencies.
Bill Pulte, whose grandfather founded one of America's largest homebuilding companies, now serves as both director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, which oversees Fannie and Freddie, and interim director of National Intelligence, a role that puts him in charge of the CIA and NSA. It is a split focus that has set off alarm bells among housing experts and investors who have been betting on privatization for years.
When asked about the timeline for taking the mortgage giants public, Trump offered little clarity. "No hay prisa," he said aboard Air Force One—there's no rush. The White House, the FHFA, Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac all declined to provide an updated schedule when asked. Susan Wachter, a real estate and finance professor at the Wharton School, put it plainly: the momentum that had been building has stalled. "I think privatizing it is an operation that requires dedication 24 hours a day, seven days a week," she said.
The stakes are substantial. Fannie and Freddie do not lend money directly to homebuyers. Instead, they purchase mortgages from lenders, repackage them, and sell them to investors. This machinery keeps capital flowing to mortgage originators, allowing them to offer borrowers lower rates. When the housing market collapsed in 2008, both companies fell under government conservatorship—a temporary measure, officials said at the time. Eighteen years later, they remain there. Supporters of privatization, including many of Trump's Republican allies, argue the companies are now healthy enough to stand alone and that a public offering could raise billions for a heavily indebted government.
But experts warn of a hidden cost. Without an explicit government guarantee to backstop investors in a future crisis, those investors would demand higher returns to compensate for the added risk. Those higher returns would likely be passed to borrowers as elevated mortgage rates. This matters now: housing prices are near record highs, mortgage rates are already elevated, and inflation concerns linger amid ongoing conflict with Iran. Wachter and others note that even if the government maintains a backstop by charging Fannie and Freddie a fee for the guarantee, that cost too would probably flow through to consumers.
Jaret Seiberg, a financial services analyst at TD Cowen, was blunt in a note to clients: the obstacles to ending the conservatorships were already formidable, both operationally and politically. "We do not see how those obstacles could be overcome if the FHFA director is spending most of his time on national security matters," he wrote. Trump defended Pulte's dual role, saying he has done "phenomenal" work at Fannie and Freddie and that the intelligence post is "not a permanent position." The market, however, has rendered its own judgment.
Investors who had wagered on privatization—including hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman, who called Fannie and Freddie shares "our best idea for 2026" in December—have watched their bets deteriorate. Both stocks have fallen roughly 40 percent this year and dropped further after Pulte's new assignment was announced. On Reddit forums where retail investors gather to discuss the companies, the mood has shifted from optimism to regret. "I hate to say it, but Trump has moved on from F2," one investor posted. Another confessed to wishing they had sold a year ago when the stock was climbing, taking a quick profit instead of holding on. The privatization dream, it seems, has collided with the reality of divided attention and the market's skepticism that it will ever be realized.
Notable Quotes
I think privatizing it is an operation that requires dedication 24 hours a day, seven days a week.— Susan Wachter, Wharton School professor of real estate and finance
We do not see how those obstacles could be overcome if the FHFA director is spending most of his time on national security matters.— Jaret Seiberg, financial services analyst at TD Cowen
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does it matter whether Fannie and Freddie are private or public? They're just mortgage companies, right?
They're not just mortgage companies—they're the plumbing of the entire U.S. housing finance system. When they buy and repackage mortgages, they keep money flowing to lenders so ordinary people can get loans. If that system breaks, housing becomes unaffordable fast.
So what happens if they go private without the right safeguards?
Investors get nervous. They'll demand higher returns to cover the risk. That cost gets passed to borrowers as higher mortgage rates. You're already looking at near-record home prices and elevated rates. Add another percentage point or two, and millions of people price themselves out of homeownership.
But couldn't the government still back them up, even if they're private?
Yes, but then you're paying for that guarantee. Fannie and Freddie would have to pay the government a fee, and that fee becomes part of their operating costs. Guess who pays that in the end? The borrower.
So why does Trump want to privatize them at all?
Money. A public offering could raise billions for a government drowning in debt. And his allies in finance see it as a chance to unlock enormous profits. The problem is the complexity—you can't just flip a switch. It requires constant, careful work.
And Pulte can't do that work if he's also running the CIA?
Exactly. You're asking one person to manage two massive, competing responsibilities. One requires deep expertise in mortgage markets and housing finance. The other demands full-time attention to national security. Something has to give.
What does the market think will happen?
The market has already spoken. Stock prices are down 40 percent. Investors who bet on privatization are losing faith. They're starting to believe it won't happen—at least not soon, and maybe not at all.