You said, “I believe this may be an issue of semantics.” And, according to your explanation, your issue did indeed deal with semantics (i.e. the interpretation of the idea of being ‘shareholder-owned’). However, I am explaining that the determination will be based upon the formal definition of a shareholder-owned entity according to current US corporate law and will, therefore, remove the potential for any confusion due to interpretation of meaning (i.e. semantics). You are incorrectly assuming that a shareholder-owned entity is the same of a public-traded shareholder-owned entity, which is not the case. According to modern US corporate law, an entity is defined as shareholder-owned whether it is ‘public’, the shares of which are bought and sold by the general public on a public stock exchange, or ‘closely-held’, for which no ready market exists for the trading of its shares. That was my intended meaning and the reason I did not use the term ‘publicly traded’. I hope that clarifies the goal/intention of this market.
Will Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac still be operating as shareholder-owned companies on December 31, 2008?
This is not an issue of semantics. A company is designated as shareholder-owned regardless of how many shareholders it has. The stock can even continue to be publicly listed even though the single shareholder may choose not to sell any shares at any price. If the single shareholder chose to no longer publicly offer the stock, the entity would still be shareholder-owned; it would simply be a private shareholder-owned corporation rather than a public one. The alternatives that the question envisions would be, as you mentioned, liquidation as well as being taken over by the government and converted into a full-fledged agency of the government such as Ginnie Mae, in which case they would by definition no longer be a shareholder-owned corporation. I hope that clears everything up.
Will Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac still be operating as shareholder-owned companies on December 31, 2008?