Troubled mortgage firm Fannie Mae said last Thursday it lost $3.1 billion in its second quarter, far less than the whopping $13.1 billion suffered in the first three months of the year.

The state-backed company said it still needed $1.5 billion from the US Treasury to wipe out its deficit as of the end of June. It would raise to $86.1 billion the money injected by the government so far.

The company said it expected earnings to continue to be negatively affected by losses primarily on loans it acquired during a home mortgage meltdown that led to the worst crisis in decades and plunged the US into a brutal recession.

“The company expects that its credit-related expenses will remain high in 2010. However, the company expects that, if current trends continue, its credit-related expenses will be lower in 2010 than in 2009,” it said in a statement.

During the first half of 2010, Fannie Mae purchased or guaranteed about $423 billion in loans, which includes about $170 billion in delinquent loans the company purchased from its ­single-family mortgage-backed securities trusts.

“We will also continue to support a variety of programmes to reach borrowers who need help, so that, whenever possible, they can avoid foreclosure and stay in their homes,” Fannie Mae president and chief executive Mike Williams.

The Treasury last month promised a plan to reform Fannie Mae and its twin state-backed mortgage firm Freddie Mac by January for delivery to ­Congress.

Collectively, the two firms pumped $5.9 trillion into the mortgage market, accounting for almost three quarters of the ­sector.

President Barack Obama and his Democratic allies have already come under fierce attack from Republicans for not including the two firms in a sweeping financial overall that was signed into law last month.

Aside from Fannie Mae, the government had to inject $61 ­billion into Freddie Mac to keep it afloat during the financial ­crisis.

Despite their role in the financial meltdown, reforming Fannie and Freddie remains political charged.

The two firms have underpinned the US housing market for 40 years, and – supporters argue – have made housing affordable for millions of poorer Americans.

Critics say they represent unwarranted government to interference in the housing ­market.