Item 2. Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations

We have been under conservatorship, with the Federal Housing Finance Agency (“FHFA”) acting as conservator, since September 6, 2008. As conservator, FHFA succeeded to all rights, titles, powers and privileges of the company, and of any shareholder, officer or director of the company with respect to the company and its assets. The conservator has since delegated specified authorities to our Board of Directors and has delegated to management the authority to conduct our day-to-day operations. Our directors do not have any duties to any person or entity except to the conservator and, accordingly, are not obligated to consider the interests of the company, the holders of our equity or debt securities or the holders of Fannie Mae MBS unless specifically directed to do so by the conservator. We describe the rights and powers of the conservator, key provisions of our agreements with the U.S. Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”), and their impact on shareholders in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 (“2011 Form 10-K”) in “Business—Conservatorship and Treasury Agreements.”

You should read this Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations (“MD&A”) in conjunction with our unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements and related notes and the more detailed information in our 2011 Form 10-K.

This report contains forward-looking statements that are based on management’s current expectations and are subject to significant uncertainties and changes in circumstances. Please review “Forward-Looking Statements” for more information on the forward-looking statements in this report. Our actual results may differ materially from those reflected in these forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors including, but not limited to, those described in “Risk Factors” and elsewhere in this report and in “Risk Factors” in our 2011 Form 10-K.

You can find a “Glossary of Terms Used in This Report” in the “MD&A” of our 2011 Form 10-K.

Fannie Mae is a government-sponsored enterprise (“GSE”) that was chartered by Congress in 1938. Our public mission is to support liquidity and stability in the secondary mortgage market, where existing mortgage-related assets are purchased and sold, and increase the supply of affordable housing. Our charter does not permit us to originate loans and lend money directly to consumers in the primary mortgage market. Our most significant activity is securitizing mortgage loans originated by lenders into Fannie Mae mortgage-backed securities that we guarantee, which we refer to as Fannie Mae MBS. We also purchase mortgage loans and mortgage-related securities for our mortgage portfolio. We use the term “acquire” in this report to refer to both our guarantees and our purchases of mortgage loans. We obtain funds to support our business activities by issuing a variety of debt securities in the domestic and international capital markets.

We are a corporation chartered by the U.S. Congress. Our conservator, FHFA, is a U.S. government agency. Treasury owns our senior preferred stock and a warrant to purchase 79.9% of our common stock. Moreover, Treasury has made a commitment under a senior preferred stock purchase agreement to provide us with funds under specified conditions and, after 2012, up to a maximum amount, to maintain a positive net worth. The U.S. government does not guarantee our securities or other obligations.

Our common stock is traded in the over-the-counter market and quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board under the symbol “FNMA.” Our debt securities are actively traded in the over-the-counter market.

The actions we have been taking since 2009 to provide liquidity and support to the market, grow a strong new book of business and minimize losses on loans we acquired prior to 2009 are having a positive impact on our business and our performance:

First Half of 2012,” we generated positive net worth for the second quarter, paid Treasury its quarterly dividend and were not required to draw funds from Treasury for the quarter under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. We expect our financial results for 2012 to be significantly better than our 2011 results.

Helping Offset the Cost of a Nationwide Payroll Tax Cut.   In addition, we are helping offset the cost of the nationwide payroll tax cut. At the direction of FHFA, effective April 1, 2012, we increased the guaranty fee on all single-family residential mortgages delivered to us by 10 basis points. This fee increase was required by the Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011 (the “TCCA”) for new loans delivered to us until 2021 and requires that we remit this increase directly to Treasury to help offset the cost of a two-month extension of the payroll tax cut from January 1, 2012 through February 29, 2012. As of June 30, 2012 , our liability to Treasury for the remittance of this guaranty fee was $26 million .

Summary of Our Financial Performance for the Second Quarter and First Half of 2012

We experienced a significant improvement in our financial results for the second quarter and first half of 2012 compared with the second quarter and first half of 2011. Although our financial condition continues to be impacted by elevated mortgage delinquencies and foreclosures as well as home prices that are significantly below their peak in 2006, we saw improvement in the housing market in the first half of 2012. In addition, we have seen further improvement in the performance of our book of business, including lower delinquency rates and higher re-performance rates for our modified loans. These factors have resulted in a reduction in our loan loss reserves and a corresponding recognition of a benefit (rather than a provision) for credit losses for the second quarter and first half of 2012.

Comprehensive Income (Loss)

Quarterly Results

We recognized comprehensive income of $5.4 billion in the second quarter of 2012, consisting of net income of $5.1 billion and other comprehensive income of $328 million . In comparison, our comprehensive loss and net loss for the second quarter of 2011 were $2.9 billion .

The significant improvement in our second quarter results was primarily due to recognition of a benefit for credit losses of $3.0 billion in the second quarter of 2012 compared with a provision for credit losses of $6.5 billion in the second quarter of 2011. This benefit for credit losses was due to a decrease in our total loss reserves driven primarily by an improvement in the profile of our single-family book of business resulting from an increase in actual home prices, including the sales prices of our REO properties. In addition, our single-family serious delinquency rate continued to decline, driven in large part by the quality and growth of our new single-family book of business, our modification efforts and current period foreclosures. Key factors impacting our credit-related results include:

As discussed below in “Our Expectations Regarding Future Loss Reserves and Credit-Related (Income) Expenses,” due to the large size of our guaranty book of business, even small changes in home prices, economic conditions and other variables can result in significant volatility in the amount of credit-related expenses or income we recognize from period to period.

The improvement in our credit results in the second quarter of 2012 was partially offset by fair value losses of $2.4 billion , compared with fair value losses of $1.6 billion in the second quarter of 2011. Our fair value losses in the second quarter of 2012 were primarily due to risk management derivative losses on pay-fixed swaps, primarily driven by a decrease in swap rates in the quarter. Derivative instruments are an integral part of how we manage interest rate risk and an inherent part of the cost of funding and hedging our mortgage investments. We expect high levels of period-to-period volatility in our results because our derivatives are recorded at fair value in our financial statements while some of the instruments they hedge are not recorded at fair value in our financial statements.

Year-to-Date Results

Our comprehensive income for the first half of 2012 was $8.5 billion , consisting of net income of $7.8 billion and other comprehensive income of $690 million . In comparison, we recognized a comprehensive loss of $9.2 billion in the first half of 2011, consisting of a net loss of $9.4 billion and other comprehensive income of $183 million .

The significant improvement in our financial results was primarily due to recognizing a benefit for credit losses of $1.0 billion in the first half of 2012 compared with a provision of $17.1 billion in the first half of 2011. The improvement was a result of the same factors that impacted the second quarter of 2012, which are described above. The improvement in our credit results was partially offset by higher fair value losses on risk management derivatives.

See “Consolidated Results of Operations” for more information on our results.

Net Worth

Our net worth of $2.8 billion as of June 30, 2012 reflects our comprehensive income of $8.5 billion offset by our payment to Treasury of $5.8 billion in senior preferred stock dividends during the first half of 2012.

As a result of our positive net worth as of June 30, 2012, we are not requesting a draw from Treasury under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement. The aggregate liquidation preference on the senior preferred stock remains at $117.1 billion , which requires an annualized dividend payment of $11.7 billion . The amount of this dividend payment exceeds our reported annual net income for every year since our inception. As of June 30, 2012, we have paid an aggregate of $25.6 billion to Treasury in dividends on the senior preferred stock.

Table 1 below displays our Treasury draws and senior preferred stock dividend payments to Treasury since entering conservatorship on September 6, 2008.

Table 1 : Treasury Draws and Senior Preferred Stock Dividend Payments

Total Loss Reserves

Our total loss reserves consist of (1) our allowance for loan losses, (2) our allowance for accrued interest receivable, (3) our allowance for preforeclosure property taxes and insurance receivables, and (4) our reserve for guaranty losses. Our total loss reserves, which reflect our estimate of the probable losses we have incurred in our guaranty book of business, including concessions we granted borrowers upon modification of their loans, decreased to $68.0 billion as of June 30, 2012 from $74.6 billion as of March 31, 2012 and $76.9 billion as of December 31, 2011. Our total loss reserve coverage to total nonperforming loans was 28% as of June 30, 2012, compared with 30% as of March 31, 2012 and 31% as of December 31, 2011.

Our Expectations Regarding Future Loss Reserves and Credit-Related (Income) Expenses

We expect the trends of stabilizing home prices and declining single-family serious delinquency rates to continue, although we expect serious delinquency rates to decline at a slower pace than in recent periods. As a result of these trends, we believe that our total loss reserves peaked as of December 31, 2011 and will not increase above $76.9 billion in the foreseeable future. We also believe that our credit-related expenses will be lower in 2012 than in 2011.

Although we expect these positive trends to continue, the amount of credit-related income or expenses we recognize in future periods could vary significantly from period to period and may be affected by many different factors, such as those described below. Moreover, although we believe that our total loss reserves peaked as of December 31, 2011, we expect our loss reserves will remain significantly elevated relative to historical levels for an extended period because (1) we expect future defaults on loans that we acquired prior to 2009 and the resulting charge-offs will occur over a period of years and (2) a significant portion of our reserves represents concessions granted to borrowers upon modification of their loans and will remain in our reserves until the loans are fully repaid or default.

Our expectations regarding our future credit-related expenses or income and loss reserves are based on our current expectations and assumptions about many factors that are subject to change. Factors that could result in higher credit-related expenses and loss reserves than we currently expect include: a drop in actual or expected home prices; an increase in our serious delinquency rate; an increase in interest rates; an increase in unemployment rates; future legislative or regulatory requirements that have a significant impact on our business, such as a requirement that we implement a principal forgiveness program; future updates to our models relating to our loss reserves, including the assumptions used by these models; future

changes to accounting policies relating to our loss reserves; significant changes in modification and foreclosure activity; changes in borrower behavior, such as an increasing number of underwater borrowers who strategically default on their mortgage loan; failures by our mortgage seller/servicers to fulfill their repurchase obligations in full; failures by our mortgage insurers to fulfill their obligations in full; and many other factors, including those discussed in “Outlook—Factors that Could Cause Actual Results to be Materially Different from Our Estimates and Expectations” in this report and in “Risk Factors” in both this report and in our 2011 Form 10-K. Due to the large size of our guaranty book of business, even small changes in these factors could have a significant impact on our financial results for a particular period.

In addition, in April 2012, FHFA issued an Advisory Bulletin that could have an impact on the amount of our future credit-related expenses or income and loss reserves; however, we are still assessing the impact of the Advisory Bulletin. See “Legislative and Regulatory Developments—FHFA Advisory Bulletin Regarding Framework for Adversely Classifying Loans” for additional information.

Our Strong New Book of Business

Credit Risk Profile of Loans in our New Book of Business Compared with our Legacy Book of Business

Since 2009, we have seen the effect of actions we took, beginning in 2008, to significantly strengthen our underwriting and eligibility standards and change our pricing to promote sustainable homeownership and stability in the housing market. While it is too early to know how the single-family loans we have acquired since January 1, 2009 will ultimately perform, given their strong credit risk profile and based on their performance so far, we expect that these loans, in the aggregate, will be profitable over their lifetime, by which we mean that we expect our fee income on these loans to exceed our credit losses and administrative costs for them. In contrast, we expect that the single-family loans we acquired from 2005 through 2008, in the aggregate, will not be profitable over their lifetime. Loans we have acquired since the beginning of 2009 constituted 59 % of our single-family guaranty book of business as of June 30, 2012. Our 2005 through 2008 acquisitions, which are becoming a smaller percentage of our single-family guaranty book of business, constituted only 27 % of our single-family guaranty book of business as of June 30, 2012.

The 59 % of our single-family guaranty book of business that represents our new single-family book of business includes loans that are refinancings of existing Fannie Mae loans under our Refi Plus ^TM initiative. Refi Plus loans constituted 14% of our single-family guaranty book of business as of June 30, 2012. Refi Plus loans include loans that are refinancings under the Administration’s Home Affordable Refinance Program (“HARP”). Because HARP and Refi Plus are designed to expand refinancing opportunities for borrowers who may otherwise be unable to refinance their mortgage loans due to a decline in home values, many of the loans we acquire under HARP and some of the loans we acquire under Refi Plus have higher LTV ratios than we would otherwise permit, greater than 100% in some cases. The volume of loans with high LTV ratios that we acquired under Refi Plus and HARP increased in the second quarter of 2012, as we discuss below in “Credit Risk Characteristics of Loans Acquired under Refi Plus and HARP.” As a result, loans with LTV ratios greater than 100% constituted 10% of our acquisitions in the second quarter of 2012, compared with 3% in the second quarter of 2011, and the weighted average LTV ratio at origination of loans we acquired in the second quarter of 2012 increased to 76 % from 71 % in the second quarter of 2011.

Our expectations regarding the ultimate performance of our loans are based on numerous expectations and assumptions, including those relating to expected changes in regional and national home prices, borrower behavior, public policy and other macroeconomic factors. If future conditions are more unfavorable than our expectations, the loans we acquired since the beginning of 2009 could become unprofitable. For example, home prices are a key factor affecting the profitability we expect. When home prices decline, the LTV ratios on our loans increase, and both the probability of default and the estimated severity of loss increase. If home prices decline significantly from June 2012 levels, the loans we acquired since the beginning of 2009 could become unprofitable. See “Outlook—Home Prices” for our current expectations regarding changes in home prices. Also see “Outlook—Factors that Could Cause Actual Results to be Materially Different from Our Estimates and Expectations” in this report and “Risk Factors” in both this report and our 2011 Form 10-K for a discussion of factors that could cause our expectations regarding the performance of the loans in our new single-family book of business to change.

Table 2 below displays information regarding the credit characteristics of the loans in our single-family conventional guaranty book of business as of June 30, 2012 by acquisition period, which illustrates the improvement in the credit risk profile of loans we acquired beginning in 2009 compared with loans we acquired in 2005 through 2008.

Table 2 : Selected Credit Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Loans Held, by Acquisition Period

__________

The single-family loans that we acquired in the first half of 2012 had a weighted average FICO credit score at origination of 762 and an average original LTV ratio of 73% . Of the single-family loans we acquired in the first half of 2012, approximately 14% had an original LTV ratio greater than 90%, and approximately 1% had a FICO credit score at origination of less than 620. The average original LTV ratio of single-family loans we acquired in the first six months of 2012, excluding HARP loans, was 68% , compared with 105% for HARP loans. See Table 2 in our 2011 Form 10-K for information regarding the credit risk profile of the single-family conventional loans we acquired during specified previous periods.

Credit Risk Characteristics of Loans Acquired under Refi Plus and HARP

Since 2009, our acquisitions have included a significant number of loans refinanced under HARP. We acquire HARP loans under Refi Plus, which provides expanded refinance opportunities for eligible Fannie Mae borrowers. HARP loans, which have LTV ratios at origination in excess of 80%, must be secured by the borrower’s primary residence. In addition, a HARP loan cannot (1) be an adjustable-rate mortgage loan, or ARM, if the initial fixed period is less than five years; (2) have an interest-only feature, which permits the payment of interest without a payment of principal; (3) be a balloon mortgage loan; or (4) have the potential for negative amortization. Under Refi Plus, we also acquire loans with LTV ratios at origination greater than 80% that do not meet the criteria for HARP because they are not secured by the borrower’s primary residence, as well as loans that have LTV ratios at origination of less than 80%. Many of the loans we acquire under HARP and some of the loans we acquire under Refi Plus have higher LTV ratios than we would otherwise permit. Some borrowers for these loans also have lower FICO credit scores than we would otherwise require.

Loans we acquire under Refi Plus and HARP represent refinancings of loans that are already in our guaranty book of business. The credit risk associated with loans we acquire under Refi Plus and HARP essentially replaces the credit risk that we already held prior to the refinancing. Loans we acquire under Refi Plus and HARP have higher serious delinquency rates and may not perform as well as the other loans we have acquired since the beginning of 2009. However, we expect these loans will perform better than the loans they replace because Refi Plus and HARP loans should reduce the borrowers’ monthly payments or provide more stable terms than the borrowers’ old loans (for example, by refinancing into a mortgage with a fixed interest rate instead of an adjustable rate).

Loans we acquired under Refi Plus represented 23% of our new single-family book of business as of June 30, 2012 and had a serious delinquency rate of 0.60% , compared with a serious delinquency rate for our new single-family book of business overall of 0.33% . These Refi Plus loans include the loans we acquired under HARP, which represented 10% of our new single-family book of business as of June 30, 2012 and had a serious delinquency rate of 1.06% . See “ Table 35 : Selected Credit Characteristics of Single-Family Conventional Loans Acquired under HARP and Refi Plus” for more information on the serious delinquency rates and mark-to-market LTV ratios as of June 30, 2012 of loans in our new single-family book of business overall and of loans we acquired under Refi Plus and HARP.

In the second quarter of 2012, the volume of loans we acquired under HARP and Refi Plus increased significantly from the first quarter as changes designed to make the benefits of HARP available to more borrowers were implemented. The approximately 128,000 loans we acquired under HARP in the second quarter of 2012 constituted 15% of our single-family acquisitions for the period, measured by unpaid principal balance, compared with 10% of single-family acquisitions in the first quarter of 2012. These loans were included in the approximately 247,000 loans we acquired under Refi Plus in the second quarter of 2012, which constituted 27% of our single-family acquisitions for the period, measured by unpaid principal balance, compared with 22% of single-family acquisitions in the first quarter of 2012.

As a result of recently implemented changes to HARP, we expect that if interest rates remain low we will continue to acquire a high volume of refinancings under HARP. In particular, we expect to acquire many refinancings with LTV ratios greater than 125%, because borrowers were unable to refinance loans with LTV ratios greater than 125% in large numbers until changes to HARP were fully implemented in the second quarter of 2012. We expect the elevated volume of HARP refinancings will decrease when interest rates rise sufficiently or when there is no longer a large population of borrowers with loans that have high LTV ratios who would benefit from refinancing. HARP is scheduled to end in December 2013.

Factors that May Affect the Credit Risk Profile and Performance of Loans in our New Book of Business in the Future

Whether the loans we acquire in the future will exhibit an overall credit profile similar to our more recent acquisitions will depend on a number of factors, including our future pricing and eligibility standards and those of mortgage insurers and the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”), the percentage of loan originations representing refinancings, our future objectives, government policy, market and competitive conditions, and the volume and characteristics of loans we acquire under Refi Plus and HARP.

See “Business—Executive Summary—Our Strong New Book of Business and Expected Losses on our Legacy Book of Business—Building a Strong New Single-Family Book of Business” in our 2011 Form 10-K for a more detailed discussion of the changes in the credit profile of our single-family acquisitions. In addition, see “MD&A—Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management” for more detail regarding the credit risk characteristics of our single-family guaranty book of business.

Credit Performance

Table 3 presents information for each of the last six quarters about the credit performance of mortgage loans in our single-family guaranty book of business and our workouts. The term “workouts” refers to home retention solutions and foreclosure alternatives. The workout information in Table 3 does not reflect repayment plans and forbearances that have been initiated but not completed, nor does it reflect trial modifications that have not become permanent.

Table 3 : Credit Statistics, Single-Family Guaranty Book of Business ⁽¹⁾

Our single-family serious delinquency rate has decreased each quarter since the first quarter of 2010. The decrease in our serious delinquency rate is primarily the result of home retention solutions, foreclosure alternatives and completed foreclosures, as well as our acquisition of loans with stronger credit profiles since the beginning of 2009, as these loans are now 59 % of our single-family guaranty book of business, resulting in a smaller percentage of our loans becoming seriously delinquent.

Although our single-family serious delinquency rate has decreased significantly since the first quarter of 2010, our serious delinquency rate and the period of time that loans remain seriously delinquent has been negatively affected in recent periods by the increase in the average number of days it is taking to complete a foreclosure. As described in “Business—Executive Summary—Reducing Credit Losses on Our Legacy Book of Business—Managing Timelines for Workouts and Foreclosures” in our 2011 Form 10-K, high levels of foreclosures, continuing issues in the servicer foreclosure process and changing legislative, regulatory and judicial requirements have lengthened the time it takes to foreclose on a mortgage loan in many states. We expect serious delinquency rates will continue to be affected in the future by home price changes, changes in other macroeconomic conditions, the length of the foreclosure process and the volume of loan modifications. We expect the number of our single-family loans that are seriously delinquent to remain well above pre-2008 levels for years. In addition, we anticipate that it will take a significant amount of time before our REO inventory is reduced to pre-2008 levels.

We provide additional information on our credit-related expenses or income in “Consolidated Results of Operations—Credit-Related (Income) Expenses” and on the credit performance of mortgage loans in our single-family book of business and our loan workouts in “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management.”

Reducing Credit Losses on Our Legacy Book of Business

To reduce the credit losses we ultimately incur on our legacy book of business, we have been focusing our efforts on the following strategies:

See “Business—Executive Summary—Reducing Credit Losses on our Legacy Book of Business” in our 2011 Form 10-K, as well as “Risk Management—Credit Risk Management—Single-Family Mortgage Credit Risk Management” in both this report and our 2011 Form 10-K, for more information on the strategies and actions we are taking to minimize our credit losses.

Providing Liquidity and Support to the Mortgage Market

Our Liquidity and Support Activities

We provide liquidity and support to the U.S. mortgage market in a number of important ways:

as for refinancing existing mortgages. We provided approximately $2.7 trillion in liquidity to the mortgage market from January 1, 2009 through June 30, 2012 through our purchases and guarantees of loans, which enabled borrowers to complete 8.1 million mortgage refinancings and 2.2 million home purchases, and provided financing for 1.3 million units of multifamily housing.

2012 Acquisitions and Market Share

In the first half of 2012, we purchased or guaranteed approximately $416 billion in loans, measured by unpaid principal balance, which includes $25.5 billion in delinquent loans we purchased from our single-family MBS trusts. These activities enabled our lender customers to finance approximately 1.8 million single-family conventional loans and loans for approximately 236,000 units in multifamily properties during the first half of 2012.

We remained the largest single issuer of mortgage-related securities in the secondary market during the second quarter of 2012, with an estimated market share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances of 46% . Our estimated market share of new single-family mortgage-related securities issuances was 51% in the first quarter of 2012 and 43% in the second quarter of 2011.

We remained a constant source of liquidity in the multifamily market. We owned or guaranteed approximately 21% of the outstanding debt on multifamily properties as of March 31, 2012 (the latest date for which information was available).

Housing and Mortgage Market and Economic Conditions

Economic growth slowed in the second quarter of 2012 compared with the first quarter of 2012. The inflation-adjusted U.S. gross domestic product, or GDP, rose by 1.5% on an annualized basis in the second quarter of 2012, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis advance estimate, compared with an increase of 2.0% in the first quarter of 2012. Growth in employment also slowed during the second quarter of 2012, as the overall economy gained an estimated 219,000 jobs, compared with 677,000 jobs in the first quarter, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Over the past 12 months ending in June 2012, the economy created 1.7 million non-farm jobs. The unemployment rate was 8.2% in June 2012 and in March 2012. In July 2012, non-farm payrolls strengthened, rising by 163,000 during the month, but the unemployment rate rose to 8.3% .

Despite the slowdown in economic growth and continued high unemployment, housing activity improved or remained mostly unchanged during the second quarter of 2012. Total existing home sales averaged 4.5 million units annualized in the second quarter of 2012, a 0.7% decrease from the first quarter of 2012, according to data available through June 2012 from the National Association of REALTORS ^® . Sales of foreclosed homes and preforeclosure, or “short,” sales (together, “distressed sales”) accounted for 25% of existing home sales in June 2012, compared with 29% in March 2012 and 30% in June 2011.

New single-family home sales strengthened during the quarter, averaging an annualized rate of 363,000 units, a 3.1% increase from the prior quarter.

The overall mortgage market serious delinquency rate, which has trended down since peaking in the fourth quarter of 2009, remained high at 7.4% as of March 31, 2012, according to the Mortgage Bankers Association National Delinquency Survey. According to the National Association of REALTORS ^® July 2012 Existing Home Sales Report, the months’ supply of existing unsold homes was 6.6 months as of June 30, 2012, compared with 6.2 months as of March 31, 2012 and 9.1 months as of June 30, 2011. Properties that are vacant and held off the market, combined with a portion of properties backing seriously delinquent mortgages not currently listed for sale, represent a significant shadow inventory putting downward pressure on home prices.

After declining by an estimated 23.6% from their peak in third quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2012, we estimate that home prices on a national basis increased by 3.2% in the second quarter of 2012. Our home price estimates are based on preliminary data and are subject to change as additional data become available. The decline in home prices over the past several years has left many homeowners with “negative equity” in their homes, which means their principal mortgage balance exceeds the current market value of their home. This increases the likelihood that borrowers will walk away from their mortgage obligations and that the loans will become delinquent and proceed to foreclosure. According to CoreLogic, approximately 11 million , or 24% , of all residential properties with mortgages were in a negative equity position at the end of the first quarter of 2012, the most recent date for which information is available. This potential supply also weighs on the supply/demand balance putting downward pressure on home prices. See “Risk Factors” in our 2011 Form 10-K for a description of risks to our business associated with the weak economy and housing market.

During the second quarter of 2012, the multifamily sector continued expanding due to ongoing rental demand and limited new apartment supply. Preliminary third-party data suggest that the national vacancy rate for professionally managed, institutional investment-type apartment properties decreased to an estimated 5.75% as of June 30, 2012, compared with an estimated 6.0% as of March 31, 2012 and an estimated 6.8% as of June 30, 2011. In addition, asking rents increased in the second quarter of 2012 by an estimated 1.0% on a national basis. As indicated by data from Axiometrics, multifamily concession rates, the rental discount rate as a percentage of asking rents, decreased during the second quarter of 2012 to -2.3 % as of June 30, 2012, compared with -3.0 % as of March 31, 2012 and -3.3 % as of December 31, 2011. The increase in rental demand is also reflected in an estimated positive net absorption, or net change in the number of occupied rental units after deducting new supply added during the second quarter of 2012, of more than 25,000 units during the second quarter, according to preliminary data from Reis, Inc. Net absorption during second quarter declined from more than 36,000 units during the first quarter of 2012, even though the spring and summer months typically experience more net absorption than other times of the year. We believe the slowing in net absorption during the second quarter of 2012 is likely due to property owners responding to increased demand by pursuing rent increases rather than increasing occupancy.

Multifamily construction starts were at an annualized rate of over 220,000 units as of June 30, 2012, based on data from the Census Bureau. Although the number of completions expected to occur in 2012 and early 2013 remains below historical norms, based on recent trends, we expect that multifamily starts could return to their historical norm of an annualized rate of approximately 245,000 units started by as early as the end of this year. There is a potential for over-supply occurring over the next 24 months in a limited number of localized areas. Nevertheless, the overall national rental market’s pace of supply is expected to remain constrained, based on expected construction completions, annualized obsolescence and anticipated household formation trends.

Outlook

Overall Market Conditions. We expect mortgage loan delinquencies and foreclosures to remain at high levels in the second half of 2012. The high level of delinquent mortgage loans has resulted in high levels of foreclosures, which have slowed the return of housing inventory to pre-housing crisis levels. Despite these pressures, we saw improvement in the housing market in the first half of 2012.

Although our results for the second half of 2012 may not be as strong as our results for the first half, we expect our financial results for 2012 overall to be significantly better than our 2011 results. We expect that single-family default and severity rates will remain high in the second half of 2012 compared to pre-housing crisis levels, but will be lower in 2012 overall than in 2011 overall. Despite signs of multifamily sector improvement at the national level, we expect multifamily foreclosures in 2012 to remain generally commensurate with 2011 levels as certain local markets and properties continue to exhibit weak fundamentals. Conditions may worsen if the unemployment rate increases on either a national or regional basis.

As a result of the recently implemented changes to HARP, we expect that if interest rates remain low we will continue to acquire a high volume of refinancings under HARP. In particular, we expect to acquire many refinancings with LTV ratios greater than 125%, because borrowers were unable to refinance loans with LTV ratios greater than 125% in large numbers

until changes to HARP were fully implemented in the second quarter of 2012. We expect the elevated volume of HARP refinancings will decrease when interest rates rise sufficiently or when there is no longer a large population of borrowers with loans that have high LTV ratios who would benefit from refinancing. Overall, we now expect the volume of refinancings we acquire in 2012 will be similar to or greater than the volume of refinancings we acquired in 2011. For a description of the recently implemented changes to HARP, see “Business—Making Home Affordable Program—Changes to the Home Affordable Refinance Program” in our 2011 Form 10-K. Our loan acquisitions have been lower in 2012 than they otherwise could have been as a result of the decrease in the maximum size of loans we may acquire in specified high-cost areas from $729,750 to $625,500, which went into effect in the fourth quarter of 2011. As a result of these factors, we expect the volume of our loan acquisitions in 2012 will be similar to or greater than the volume of our loan acquisitions in 2011.

We estimate that total originations in the U.S. single-family mortgage market in 2012 will increase from 2011 levels by approximately 9% from an estimated $1.36 trillion to an estimated $1.49 trillion , and that the amount of originations in the U.S. single-family mortgage market that are refinancings will increase from approximately $900 billion in 2011 to approximately $980 billion in 2012. Refinancings comprised approximately 78% of our single-family business volume in the second quarter of 2012, compared with approximately 83% in the first quarter of 2012, and approximately 76% for all of 2011.

Home Prices. After declining by an estimated 23.6% from their peak in the third quarter of 2006 to the first quarter of 2012, we estimate that home prices on a national basis increased by 3.2% in the second quarter of 2012. Although we believe home prices may decline again through early 2013, we expect that, if current market trends continue, home prices will not decline on a national basis below their first quarter 2012 levels. Future home price changes may be very different from our estimates as a result of significant inherent uncertainty in the current market environment, including uncertainty about the effect of actions the federal government has taken and may take with respect to tax policies, spending cuts, mortgage finance programs and policies, and housing finance reform; the management of the Federal Reserve’s MBS holdings; the impact of those actions on and changes generally in unemployment and the general economic and interest rate environment; and the impact on the U.S. economy of the European debt crisis. Because of these uncertainties, the actual home price changes we experience may differ significantly from these estimates. We also expect significant regional variation in home price changes and the timing of home price stabilization. Our estimates of home price changes are based on our home price index, which is calculated differently from the S&P/Case-Shiller U.S. National Home Price Index and therefore results in different percentages for comparable changes. Our estimated 23.6% peak-to-trough decline in home prices on a national basis corresponds to a 35.1% decline according to the S&P/Case-Shiller’s National Home Price Index.

Credit-Related Income or Expenses and Credit Losses.   Our credit-related income or expenses, which include our benefit or provision for credit losses, reflect our recognition of losses on our loans. Through our provision for credit losses, we recognize credit-related expenses on loans in the period in which we determine that we have incurred a probable loss on the loans as of the end of the period, or in which we have granted concessions to the borrowers. Accordingly, our credit-related income or expenses in each period are affected by changes in actual and expected home prices, borrower payment behavior, the types and volumes of loss mitigation activities and foreclosures we complete, and estimated recoveries from our lender and mortgage insurer counterparties. Our credit losses, which include our charge-offs, net of recoveries, reflect our realization of losses on our loans. We realize losses on loans, through our charge-offs, when foreclosure sales are completed or when we accept short sales or deeds-in-lieu of foreclosure.

We expect that our credit-related expenses for all of 2012 will be lower than for 2011. In addition, we expect our credit losses to remain high in 2012 relative to pre-housing crisis levels. To the extent delays in foreclosures continue in 2012, our realization of some credit losses will be delayed. We further describe our outlook for credit-related expenses in “Summary of Our Financial Performance for the Second Quarter and First Half of 2012—Our Expectations Regarding Future Loss Reserves and Credit-Related Expenses (Income).”

Uncertainty Regarding our Future Status and Ability to Pay Dividends to Treasury. There is significant uncertainty in the current market environment, and any changes in the trends in macroeconomic factors that we currently anticipate, such as home prices and unemployment, may cause our future credit-related expenses or income and credit losses to vary significantly from our current expectations. The dividend payments we make on Treasury’s senior preferred stock are substantial, currently $11.7 billion per year. We have paid over $25 billion in dividends to Treasury since entering into conservatorship in 2008. Although we may experience period-to-period volatility in earnings and comprehensive income, we do not expect to generate net income or comprehensive income in excess of our annual dividend obligation to Treasury over the long term. However, we expect that in some future quarters we will be able to generate comprehensive income sufficient to cover at least a portion of our quarterly dividend payment to Treasury. We also expect that, over time, our dividend obligation to Treasury will increasingly drive our future draws under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement.

Receiving additional draws under the senior preferred stock purchase agreement would further increase the dividends we owe to Treasury on the senior preferred stock.

In addition, there is significant uncertainty regarding the future of our company, including how long the company will continue to be in its current form, the extent of our role in the market, what form we will have, and what ownership interest, if any, our current common and preferred stockholders will hold in us after the conservatorship is terminated. We expect this uncertainty to continue. In February 2011, Treasury and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (“HUD”) released a report to Congress on reforming America’s housing finance market. The report states that the Administration will work with FHFA to determine the best way to responsibly wind down both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The report emphasizes the importance of providing the necessary financial support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the transition period. In February 2012, Treasury Secretary Geithner stated that the Administration intended to release new details around approaches to housing finance reform, including winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and to work with Congressional leaders to explore options for legislation, but that he does not expect housing finance reform legislation to be enacted in 2012.

We cannot predict the prospects for the enactment, timing or content of legislative proposals regarding long-term reform of the GSEs. See “Legislative and Regulatory Developments” in this report and “Business—Legislative and Regulatory Developments” in our 2011 Form 10-K for discussions of recent legislative reform of the financial services industry and proposals for GSE reform that could affect our business. See “Risk Factors” in our 2011 Form 10-K for a discussion of the risks to our business relating to the uncertain future of our company.

Factors that Could Cause Actual Results to be Materially Different from Our Estimates and Expectations. We present a number of estimates and expectations in this executive summary, including estimates and expectations regarding our future financial results, the profitability of single-family loans we have acquired, our single-family credit losses, our loss reserves and credit-related expenses, and our draws from and dividends to be paid to Treasury. These estimates and expectations are forward-looking statements based on our current assumptions regarding numerous factors, including future home prices and the future performance of our loans. Our future estimates of our performance, as well as the actual amounts, may differ materially from our current estimates and expectations as a result of: the timing and level of, as well as regional variation in, home price changes; changes in interest rates, unemployment rates and other macroeconomic variables; government policy; the length of time it takes to complete foreclosures; changes in generally accepted accounting principles (“GAAP”); credit availability; borrower behavior; the volume of loans we modify; the effectiveness of our loss mitigation strategies, management of our REO inventory and pursuit of contractual remedies; whether our counterparties meet their obligations in full; changes in the fair value of our assets and liabilities; impairments of our assets; and many other factors, including those discussed in “Risk Factors,” “Forward-Looking Statements” and elsewhere in this report, and in “Risk Factors” in our 2011 Form 10-K. For example, if the economy were to enter a deep recession, we would expect actual outcomes to differ substantially from our current expectations.

The information in this section updates and supplements information regarding legislative and regulatory developments set forth in “Business—Legislative and Regulatory Developments” and “Business—Our Charter and Regulation of Our Activities” in our 2011 Form 10-K and in “MD&A—Legislative and Regulatory Developments” in our quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2012 (“First Quarter 2012 Form 10-Q”). Also see “Risk Factors” in this report and our 2011 Form 10-K for a discussion of risks relating to legislative and regulatory matters.

GSE Reform

Policymakers and others have focused significant attention in recent years on how to reform the nation’s housing finance system, including what role, if any, the GSEs should play. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (the “Dodd-Frank Act”), which was signed into law in July 2010, calls for enactment of meaningful structural reforms of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The Dodd-Frank Act also required the Treasury Secretary to submit a report to Congress with recommendations for ending the conservatorships of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

In February 2011, Treasury and HUD released their report to Congress on reforming America’s housing finance market. The report provides that the Administration will work with FHFA to determine the best way to responsibly reduce Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s role in the market and ultimately wind down both institutions.

The report identifies a number of policy steps that could be used to wind down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, reduce the government’s role in housing finance and help bring private capital back to the mortgage market. These steps include

(1) increasing guaranty fees, (2) gradually increasing the level of required down payments so that any mortgages insured by Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac eventually have at least a 10% down payment, (3) reducing conforming loan limits to those established in the Federal Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008 (the “2008 Reform Act”), (4) encouraging Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to pursue additional credit loss protection and (5) reducing Fannie Mae’s and Freddie Mac’s portfolios, consistent with Treasury’s senior preferred stock purchase agreements with the companies.

In addition, the report outlines three potential options for a new long-term structure for the housing finance system following the wind-down of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The first option would privatize housing finance almost entirely. The second option would add a government guaranty mechanism that could scale up during times of crisis. The third option would involve the government offering catastrophic reinsurance behind private mortgage guarantors. Each of these options assumes the continued presence of programs operated by FHA, the Department of Agriculture and the Veterans Administration to assist targeted groups of borrowers. The report does not state whether or how the existing infrastructure or human capital of Fannie Mae may be used in the establishment of such a reformed system. The report emphasizes the importance of proceeding with a careful transition plan and providing the necessary financial support to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac during the transition period. A copy of the report can be found on the Housing Finance Reform section of Treasury’s Web site, www.Treasury.gov. We are providing Treasury’s Web site address solely for your information, and information appearing on Treasury’s Web site is not incorporated into this quarterly report on Form 10-Q.

In February 2012, Treasury Secretary Geithner stated that the Administration intended to release new details around approaches to housing finance reform, including winding down Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and to work with Congressional leaders to explore options for legislation, but that he does not expect housing finance reform legislation to be enacted in 2012.

During 2011, Congress held hearings on the future status of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and members of Congress offered legislative proposals relating to the future status of the GSEs. We expect additional hearings on GSE reform and additional legislation to be considered and proposals to be discussed, including proposals that would result in a substantial change to our business structure or that involve Fannie Mae’s liquidation or dissolution. Several bills have been introduced that would place the GSEs into receivership after a period of time and either grant federal charters to new entities to engage in activities similar to those currently engaged in by the GSEs or leave secondary mortgage market activities to entities in the private sector. For example, legislation has been introduced in both the House of Representatives and the Senate that would require FHFA to make a determination within two years of enactment regarding whether the GSEs were financially viable and, if the GSEs were determined not to be financially viable, to place them into receivership. As drafted, these bills may, upon enactment, impair our ability to issue securities in the capital markets and therefore our ability to conduct our business, absent the federal government providing an explicit guarantee of our existing and future liabilities.

In addition to bills that seek to resolve the status of the GSEs, numerous bills have been introduced and considered that could constrain the current operations of the GSEs or alter the existing authority that FHFA or Treasury has over the enterprises. For example, the Subcommittee on Capital Markets and Government Sponsored Enterprises of the House Financial Services Committee has approved bills that would:

Of these bills that passed at a subcommittee level, the only one that has passed the full committee is the bill that would put GSE employees on a government pay scale. We expect additional legislation relating to the GSEs to be introduced and considered by Congress. We cannot predict the prospects for the enactment, timing or content of legislative proposals concerning the future status of the GSEs, their regulation or operations.

In sum, there continues to be uncertainty regarding the future of our company, including how long the company will continue to exist in its current form, the extent of our role in the market, what form we will have, and what ownership interest, if any, our current common and preferred stockholders will hold in us after the conservatorship is terminated. See “Risk Factors” in our 2011 Form 10-K for a discussion of the risks to our business relating to the uncertain future of our company. Also see “Risk Factors” in this report for a discussion of how the uncertain future of our company may adversely affect our ability to retain and recruit well-qualified employees, including senior management.

Principal Forgiveness

On July 31, 2012, the Acting Director of FHFA announced FHFA’s decision not to direct Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to participate in Treasury’s HAMP Principal Reduction Alternative program. Based on its analysis, FHFA concluded that the economic benefit of participating in that program does not outweigh the costs and risks. In a letter sent to Congress regarding FHFA’s decision, Acting Director DeMarco previewed for Congress several housing-related initiatives to strengthen the loss mitigation and borrower assistance efforts of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, as well as improve the operation of the housing finance market. These initiatives include new and consistent policies for lender representations and warranties, alignment and simplification of the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac short sale programs, and further enhancements for borrowers looking to refinance their mortgages.

Prudential Management and Operational Standards

As required by the Federal Housing Enterprises Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992, as amended by the Housing Finance Regulatory Reform Act of 2008 (together, the “GSE Act”), in June 2012, FHFA published a final rule establishing prudential standards relating to the management and operations of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks in the following ten areas: (1) internal controls and information systems; (2) independence and adequacy of internal audit systems; (3) management of market risk exposure; (4) management of market risk—measurement systems, risk limits, stress testing, and monitoring and reporting; (5) adequacy and maintenance of liquidity and reserves; (6) management of asset and investment portfolio growth; (7) investments and acquisitions of assets; (8) overall risk management processes; (9) management of credit and counterparty risk; and (10) maintenance of adequate records. These standards are established as guidelines, which the Director of FHFA may modify, revoke or add to at any time by order or notice. The rule also specifies actions FHFA may take if a regulated entity fails to meet one or more of the standards or fails to comply with the rule, such as requiring the entity to submit a corrective plan or increasing its capital requirements.

Proposed Housing Goals for 2012 to 2014

On June 11, 2012, FHFA published a proposed rule establishing the following single-family home purchase and refinance housing goal benchmarks for 2012 to 2014 for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. A home purchase mortgage may be counted toward more than one home purchase benchmark.

Under FHFA’s rule establishing our housing goals, private-label mortgage-related securities, second liens and single-family government loans do not count towards the housing goals. In addition, only permanent modifications of mortgages under HAMP completed during the year count towards the housing goals; trial modifications will not be counted. Moreover, these modifications count only towards the single-family low-income families refinance goal, not any of the home purchase goals. Refinancings under HARP also count toward the single-family low-income families refinancing goal.

If we do not meet these benchmarks, we may still meet our goals. Our single-family housing goals performance will be measured against these benchmarks and against goals-qualifying originations in the primary mortgage market. We will be in compliance with the housing goals if we meet either the benchmarks or market share measures.

To meet FHFA’s proposed goals, our multifamily mortgage acquisitions must finance a certain number of units affordable to low-income families and a certain number of units affordable to very low-income families. The specific requirements for each year are set forth in Table 4 below. There is no market-based alternative measurement for the multifamily goals .

Table 4 : Proposed Multifamily Housing Goals for 2012 to 2014

See “Risk Factors” in our 2011 Form 10‑K for a description of how we may be unable to meet our housing goals and how actions we may take to meet these goals and other regulatory requirements could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition.

FHFA Advisory Bulletin Regarding Framework for Adversely Classifying Loans

On April 9, 2012, FHFA issued an Advisory Bulletin, “Framework for Adversely Classifying Loans, Other Real Estate Owned, and Other Assets and Listing Assets for Special Mention,” which was effective upon issuance and is applicable to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Federal Home Loan Banks. The Advisory Bulletin establishes guidelines for adverse classification and identification of specified assets and off-balance sheet credit exposures. The Advisory Bulletin indicates that this guidance considers and is generally consistent with the Uniform Retail Credit Classification and Account Management Policy issued by the federal banking regulators in June 2000.

Among other requirements, the Advisory Bulletin requires that we classify the portion of an outstanding single-family loan balance in excess of the fair value of the underlying property, less costs to sell, as “loss” when the loan is no more than 180 days delinquent, except in certain specified circumstances (such as properly secured loans with an LTV ratio equal to or less than 60%), and charge off the portion of the loan classified as “loss.” The Advisory Bulletin also specifies that, if we subsequently receive full or partial payment of a previously charged-off loan, we may report a recovery of the amount, either through our loss reserves or as a reduction in our foreclosed property expenses.

The accounting methods outlined in FHFA’s Advisory Bulletin are different from our current methods of accounting for single-family loans that are 180 days or more delinquent. As described in “Risk Factors,” we believe that implementation of these changes in our accounting methods present significant operational challenges for us. We have not yet determined when we will implement the accounting changes specified in the Advisory Bulletin. We are currently assessing the impact of implementing these accounting changes on our future financial results.

The preparation of financial statements in accordance with GAAP requires management to make a number of judgments, estimates and assumptions that affect the reported amount of assets, liabilities, income and expenses in the condensed

consolidated financial statements. 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 “Note 1, Summary of Significant Accounting Policies” in this report and in our 2011 Form 10-K.

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 any significant changes in judgments and assumptions in applying our critical accounting policies with the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors. 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 Measurement

•    Total Loss Reserves

•    Other-Than-Temporary Impairment of Investment Securities

See “MD&A—Critical Accounting Policies and Estimates” in our 2011 Form 10-K for a detailed discussion of these critical accounting policies and estimates. We provide below information about our Level 3 assets and liabilities as of June 30, 2012 as compared with December 31, 2011. We also describe any significant changes in the judgments and assumptions we made during the first half of 2012 in applying our critical accounting policies and significant changes to critical estimates.

Fair Value Measurement

The use of fair value to measure our assets and liabilities is fundamental to our financial statements and our fair value measurement is a critical accounting estimate because we account for and record a portion of our assets and liabilities at fair value. In determining fair value, we use various valuation techniques. We describe the valuation techniques and inputs used to determine the fair value of our assets and liabilities and disclose their carrying value and fair value in “Note 12, Fair Value.”

Fair Value Hierarchy—Level 3 Assets and Liabilities

The assets and liabilities that we have classified as Level 3 consist primarily of financial instruments for which there is limited market activity and therefore little or no price transparency. As a result, the valuation techniques that we use to estimate the fair value of Level 3 instruments involve significant unobservable inputs, which generally are more subjective and involve a high degree of management judgment and assumptions. Our Level 3 assets and liabilities consist of certain mortgage-backed securities and residual interests, certain mortgage loans, certain acquired property, certain long-term debt arrangements and certain highly structured, complex derivative instruments.

Table 5 presents a comparison of the amount of financial assets carried in our condensed consolidated balance sheets at fair value on a recurring basis (“recurring assets”) that were classified as Level 3 as of June 30, 2012 and December 31, 2011. The availability of observable market inputs to measure fair value varies based on changes in market conditions, such as liquidity. As a result, we expect the amount of financial instruments carried at fair value on a recurring basis and classified as Level 3 to vary each period.

Assets measured at fair value on a nonrecurring basis and classified as Level 3, which are not presented in the table above, primarily include mortgage loans and acquired property. The fair value of Level 3 nonrecurring assets totaled $27.3 billion as of June 30, 2012.

Financial liabilities measured at fair value on a recurring basis and classified as Level 3 consisted of long-term debt with a fair value of $1.7 billion as of June 30, 2012 and $1.2 billion as of December 31, 2011, and other liabilities with a fair value of $162 million as of June 30, 2012 and $173 million as of December 31, 2011.

Other-Than-Temporary Impairment of Investment Securities

We evaluate available-for-sale securities in an unrealized loss position as of the end of each quarter for other-than-temporary impairment. Our evaluation requires significant management judgment and consideration of various factors to determine if we will receive the amortized cost basis of our investment securities. We evaluate a debt security for other-than-temporary impairment using an econometric model that estimates the present value of cash flows given multiple factors. These factors include: the severity and duration of the impairment; recent events specific to the issuer and/or industry to which the issuer belongs; the payment structure of the security; external credit ratings and the failure of the issuer to make scheduled interest or principal payments. We rely on expected future cash flow projections to determine if we will recover the amortized cost basis of our available-for-sale securities.

In the second quarter of 2012, we updated our assumptions used to project cash flow estimates on our Alt-A and subprime private-label securities to incorporate recent observable market trends, which included extending the time it takes to liquidate loans underlying these securities and increasing severity rates for loans where the servicer stopped advancing payments. These updates resulted in lower net present value of cash flow projections on our Alt-A and subprime securities and increased our other-than-temporary impairment expense by approximately $500 million. We provide more detailed information on our accounting for other-than-temporary impairment in “Note 5, Investments in Securities.”

This section provides a discussion of our condensed consolidated results of operations for the periods indicated and should be read together with our condensed consolidated financial statements, including the accompanying notes.

Table 6 displays a summary of our condensed consolidated results of operations for the periods indicated.

Table 6 : Summary of Condensed Consolidated Results of Operations