Weekly Real Estate News
Summary
U.S. Federal Housing's October 30 annual report says Freddie Mac missed its 2025 minority-census-tract home-purchase subgoal by 0.2 percentage points, while Fannie Mae met all housing goals. The agency declined to require a corrective plan and separately reported preliminary mortgage-pricing disparity referrals based on 2024 loan data. Both enterprises met multifamily goals; Duty to Serve ratings and individual program targets varied.
Freddie Mac missed a federal mortgage-purchase target for minority census tracts in 2025, while Fannie Mae met every housing goal assigned to it, according to a 55-page federal report released Friday. The regulator also disclosed that its separate review of mortgage pricing found preliminary patterns of disparities and resulted in referrals to other agencies for further examination.
The 2026 Annual Housing Report, published October 30 by Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), covers Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac’s 2025 performance. Its conclusions draw a distinction between meeting broad affordable-housing benchmarks and reaching borrowers in particular underserved markets.
Freddie Mac’s share of qualifying home-purchase mortgages in minority census tracts was 11.7%, compared with a retrospective market level of 11.9% and a prospective benchmark of 12%. Under the agency’s rules, meeting either the benchmark or the market level would have satisfied the subgoal. Freddie Mac missed the lower measure by 0.2 percentage points.
The agency determined that meeting the target had been feasible. It nevertheless declined to require a corrective housing plan, citing the narrow shortfall and the fact that Freddie Mac had not previously missed that particular subgoal. The determination is an exercise of regulatory discretion following a documented miss; it does not mean the target was achieved.
Where the two mortgage giants met — and missed — their targets
Fannie Mae exceeded the minority-census-tract benchmark and market level, with 13.5% of its qualifying purchases in that category. It also achieved the other single-family goals, including a 29.5% low-income home-purchase share and a 33.0% low-income refinance share. Freddie Mac met its other single-family goals, reporting 27.8% for low-income purchases and 30.2% for low-income refinances.
These figures measure the composition of mortgages purchased by the enterprises. They do not measure the share of all households that obtained a mortgage, nor do they establish that a particular lender discriminated against applicants. The regulator derives its retrospective market comparisons from conventional, conforming loans reported under the Home Mortgage Disclosure Act; government-insured FHA, VA and USDA loans are outside that comparison.
Both enterprises also cleared all three multifamily housing-goal benchmarks. Fannie Mae reported that 70.5% of units financed through qualifying multifamily purchases met the low-income measure, against a 61% benchmark. Freddie Mac’s corresponding result was 69.7%. For units affordable to very-low-income households, Fannie Mae recorded 14.1% and Freddie Mac 16.7%, each above the 14% requirement.
The results matter to mortgage originators because the enterprises’ purchasing standards and affordable-housing obligations influence the secondary market for conventional loans. They also show how a lender can meet a broad income-based goal while missing a geographically defined target. The regulator’s report landing page provides the full annual assessment, including the final determination letters.
Goal
Fannie Mae
Freddie Mac
Low-income home purchases
29.5%
27.8%
Very-low-income home purchases
7.0%
6.3%
Minority census tracts home purchases
13.5%
11.7%
Low-income refinances
33.0%
30.2%
Mortgage-pricing referrals remain preliminary
In a separate section, the agency said it analyzed 2024 mortgage-rate data supplied by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during 2025, controlling for credit-related factors to examine potential disparities affecting protected classes of borrowers. The review identified one or more preliminary patterns and led to referrals to the appropriate regulatory or enforcement agencies.
The report does not name the lenders involved, quantify the pricing differences or announce enforcement findings. Under the governing statute, a preliminary pattern must be referred for further review. A referral is neither a final determination of unlawful discrimination nor a finding that the enterprises themselves violated fair-lending law. The public record presented in the report does not support identifying a particular institution or assigning liability.
For loan officers and compliance teams, the disclosure reinforces the distinction between a borrower’s quoted interest rate and the factors used to assess comparable credit risk. It also leaves important questions unanswered: the number of referrals, the affected markets and whether any subsequent investigation established a violation are not specified in the report.
Manufactured housing and rural lending show uneven progress
The regulator gave both enterprises passing Duty to Serve evaluations for manufactured housing, affordable-housing preservation and rural housing. Freddie Mac received a High Satisfactory rating in all three markets. Fannie Mae received High Satisfactory ratings in manufactured housing and preservation, and Low Satisfactory in rural housing.
Passing evaluations did not mean every operational target was reached. Fannie Mae purchased 5,091 loans secured by manufactured homes titled as real property, below its 6,300-loan target. Freddie Mac purchased 6,232 against a 6,550-loan target. The agencies’ ratings assess a wider body of activities, including financing programs, outreach and investment, rather than only a single loan-purchase count.
Affordable-housing preservation produced stronger results. Fannie Mae financed debt on low-income housing tax credit projects containing 30,667 units, above its 26,000-unit target. Freddie Mac financed 52,743 units against a target of 39,000. In high-needs rural regions, Fannie Mae purchased 6,688 single-family loans against a 6,900 target, while Freddie Mac purchased 7,327 against 7,400.
The report also records $366 million in affordable-housing allocations disbursed by the enterprises in February 2026 based on the previous year’s business: $238 million to the Housing Trust Fund and $128 million to the Capital Magnet Fund. Those funds are administered by HUD and the Treasury Department, respectively, rather than by the housing-finance regulator.
Friday’s release comes amid heightened attention to the enterprises’ mortgage portfolios and credit performance. Freddie Mac reported a larger credit-loss provision in its third-quarter results, while recent metropolitan home-price data showed persistent affordability pressure in much of the country. Those newer indicators concern 2026 market conditions; the housing-goals assessment released Friday is retrospective and covers 2025.
The agency had notified Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac of its final housing-goal determinations in August and September. Publication of the annual report now makes the detailed comparisons and the separate preliminary pricing-disparity referrals available in a single public document. It announces no new mortgage eligibility rule or immediate change to loan pricing.
Source: U.S. Federal Housing, 2026 Annual Housing Report, released October 30, 2026, covering January–December 2025. Figures for the housing goals appear in Tables 1–4; pricing-disparity discussion appears on page 16; Duty to Serve findings and affordable-housing allocations appear on pages 9–18.
Simple Content Summary
FHFA’s 2026 Annual Housing Report says Freddie Mac missed its 2025 minority census tract mortgage-purchase subgoal while Fannie Mae met its housing goals. The report also discusses mortgage-pricing disparities and agency referrals.
