Thread regarding Fannie Mae layoffs

$2.07 million profit per employee?

If Fannie Mae is bringing in 2.07 MILLION per employee, per year, why are layoffs necessary? Please educate me because I'm obviously a mo--n.

https://the-cfo.io/2025/12/09/the-hidden-engines-driving-million-dollar-employees/


by
| 2161 views | | 6 replies (last December 21) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+1kc11zje7

6 replies (most recent on top)

I could also ask why have employees that do nothing or minimal all day and pay them six figures, regardless of how much money a company makes. Also, smaller companies can often become more efficient. Some of the larger departments there are run so poorly and need fresh blood or ideas.

Or how about since Fannie and Freddie has been paying the treasury all these years (well over a decade), they give some of the profit back to tax paying citizens instead of congress who will just spend and waste it.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @21j+1kc11zje7

@b5 it’s still more than what you make ‘ZERO’

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @d1+1kc11zje7

@c7 while that is true in theory the cost benefit analysis would make zero sense to do so. They would accelerate reaching that goal for about few days while creating absolute chaos and logistical nightmare in the organization.
Once again this board is frequented primarily by bitter former workers who also appear to be absolute mo--ns.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @cg+1kc11zje7

Because both GSEs need another $50B each to meet their min cap requirements to exit conservatorship, and they can replace half of you w/ CTRs w/ zero impact to hitting revenue targets.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @c7+1kc11zje7

$2.7m plus your pittance of a wage is more than just $2.7m. The math checks out, have fun being poorer than you already are.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @b5+1kc11zje7

First, let's be honest here that such metric is never used and that the company makes such money by design and by default and not due to any other reason.

But you are absolutely correct. None of this was required. The company had around 8500 employees for more than a decade. Why cut 20%?!

My guess is that you do this to flex your power and show who is in charge. And my second guess is that you do this to lower SG&A expenses because you plan on hiring some very expensive executives in the future. Remember how things work on that level. You do favors for your buddies so they do favors for you later on.

Maybe someone else will bring any other legitimate reason but in my mind everything else fails intellectual scrutiny. None of this sh-t was needed.

On the flip side at this moment, it's obvious that the morale is so low that they must reverse their ways.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @ak+1kc11zje7

Post a reply

: