Fannie Mae (FNMA)

[kthomp19]

How many articles have been read?

A few of them, some from back when the presidential memo came out in March and the others from a month ago when Treasury's report was released. Examples from March include this piece and this piece.

Is there any content that has in-depth content? Has privatization been discussed in an informed manner in the comments?

These are opinion questions; to the first I say "not really" because none of the articles are all that long, and even then they tend to jump around and not go into the ramifications of what privatization actually means. To the second, I can't provide an answer because I don't usually read comments on news articles.

Is that what was meant when it is stated:

Yes.

Is that a post-hoc correction or addition when learning there were news articles mentioning privatization?

Neither.

Did you read such articles before October 7, 2019?

This is answered above.

Frankly, it requires little expertise to read and report material that already exists and is available in one's own words.

Who is "one" here? If it's you, I would argue that gaining the knowledge and command of that material is what is not easy.

Are you not familiar with the hypothetical models and speculative scenarios present on this message board?

Yes, I have read a few. And frankly, I find the ones "based on unelaborated statements and hearsay" to be among the most plausible because the rest are based, at best, on hand-waving and guesswork.

The one you linked to, in particular, is not based on any statements or hearsay at all as far as I can tell. I can't find any logical basis for the predictions make. That makes it more of a non-example by your criteria.

What criteria have been set?

This should have been clear to you. The criteria are that a model is hypothetical and/or that a scenario is speculative, and that the model or scenario is "based on unelaborated statements and hearsay".

Recollection of what exactly? What does "many" and "few" mean to you? Please define for clarity's sake.

Recollection of the posters' attitudes about when they plan to sell their stakes and do something else with their money. "Many" here is roughly a dozen, but to me generally means at least five or six. "Few" would be less, two to four.

What can be said about the total number of currently, unique posters on all these boards. 45? 50?

My guess would be more like 100-120, but I could be underestimating the amount of overlap.

Are they all GSE stock shareholders?

There is no way to know for sure, but I think that 90-95% are, and the ones that aren't are trolls (mostly on Seeking Alpha) that say things like "taxpayers bailed FnF out so all existing shareholders should be wiped out"". I see little reason for a non-shareholder to read and post on these boards, beyond the occasional trolling.

(no answer given)

I didn't give answers because I don't know them. In the past you have given an answer of "___________", so it seems hypocritical to insist on an answer to every question you ask.

"This attitude" appears to only refer to "their unwillingness to address the ramifications of full privatization" "which makes analysis of hypothetical capital models much more useful than worrying about possible legislation that would occur well past my investment horizon."

If you go back and read my first post in this thread, you will see that my suspicion ("I suspect...") refers not to the attitude itself but to its prevalence. The attitude itself was observed on various message boards.

Where is there mention of a catalytic event in the statement?

This is among the observations, as an explanation for why those posters did not care about what full privatization means.