Where do you get the data that half were/are owned outright? And if owned outright, in what capacity? Did the swap, substitute, collect default insurance. Any insurance collected is applicable to your loan balance.
I simply looked at the published Freddie Mac financial statements.
For example, Freddie posts a monthly volume and holdings summary within its Investor pages:
The most recent month is December 2011:
I was shooting from the hip when I said it was half and half. The mix has changed over time. It appears that the current mix is slightly in favor of portfolio ownership. I had recalled these figures being more closely in balance. Since the monthly report is unfamiliar to you, I will walk you through the numbers.
Table 1 shows Freddie's portfolio mortgage investments. You will see columns for "Purchases and Issuances", "Sales", "Liquidations", "Net Increase" and "Ending Balance". This latter column shows that Freddie's portfolio investment in mortgages at the end of December 2011 (year end) was $2.075 TRILLION.
Table 4 on page 2 of the report shows Freddie's Mortgage-Related Securities and Guarantee Commitments. The year end figure was $1.645 TRILLION. These are the mortgages which were subject to a Freddie Guarantee placed in pools in exchange for Freddie pass-through certificates.
So the correct figures are $2.075 trillion vs. $1.645 trillion. In other words, 55.78% of the mortgages (by balance) are portfolio and 44.22% are in trust pools.
You could also find this information within Freddie's published quarterly or annual reports which may be found at Freddie's website or the Securities and Exchange Commission's EDGAR site.
So contrary to your assertion, it is MORE LIKELY that a given loan (by balance, as opposed to loan count) would be in Freddie's portfolio rather than held in trust for pool certificate holders.
As Bill pointed out in the prior post, your assertion that guarantees, pool insurance proceeds, primary insurance proceeds, credit default swaps or any other forms of credit protection would absolve a borrower of even one dime of liability are totally specious. There is no legal validity to this assertion whatsoever. It is simply a myth propagated by swindlers who use this as a pretext to scam distressed borrowers out of money to "investigate" the possibility of such credit enhancement.
The mark or pigeon will be swindled out of hundreds or thousands of dollars, depending upon the size of the loan, on the assurance that the swindler will help relieve them of their liability. When the arguments are rejected by the court, as they ALWAYS ARE SINCE THE ARGUMENT HAS NO LEGAL MERIT, the borrower will be told it was because the judge was corrupt or incompetent.
THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A SINGLE CASE ANYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES WHERE A BORROWER AVOIDED LIABILITY FOR A LOAN AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THIS NONSENSICAL ARGUMENT.