Fannie Mae-No Politics (FNMA)

[Sogo]

Devil's in details for commons. "Restructuring", "returning" to private shareholder-based ownership unfortunately does not necessarily mean restructuring in a manner that protects the current common shareholders (see many corporate restructuring examples where commons get screwed). Unfortunately it does not, grammatically at least, mean the current common shareholders will be the same shareholders once the entities would be "returned" to private shareholder ownership. They could, in theory, be saying that they want to have the end result be that the GSEs will be owned by shareholders. But that does NOT necessarily mean that the current shareholders won't be screwed in the process. They could, in theory, shut down the GSEs and restructure the commons OUT of the transition into reforming the GSEs as one NEW entity, which could be owned by entirely new and different shareholders. I'm just parsing the language bc these criminals use language to deceive us all the time. In a court of law, i could easily explain how the sentence from your cited quote actually does not necessarily make current common shareholders feel any safer. I've been long for years now and holding, btw. I'm looking for positive developments too, but I do not necessarily trust these criminals to protect the current common shareholders. GM's current common shareholders: are they the same people who held commons before '08? GM's case is very different. But the gvt didn't follow the law in that case. Why would they feel they must in the GSEs' case?