luke, the "ecstatic" comment doesnt connect with "shareholders who spoke with calabria".
Well, sure seems that way unless the author hasn't taken a basic writing course. Professional writers don't, or shouldn't, go from one type of subject to another type of subject then back to the original subject without differentiating. It would be an odd writing style.
Spoke with Calabria:
"Fannie and Freddie shareholders who spoke to FHFA head Mark Calabria this week..."
Later in article... Investors that didn't speak with Calabria, so random investors?
"Fannie and Freddie stockholders were ecstatic at Calabria’s statements. “It’s exactly what we laid out,” one investor said. “The goal of this president is what can be done administratively. You can see there’s a focus on getting it done.”"
Even later in the article... Spoke with Calabria:
"But one shareholder said Calabria was firm that an IPO is feasible."
this article is very ambiguous and cannot be relied on.
Of course one single article alone, in a vacuum, can't be relied upon.
even if it were reliable, you still have to explain how we went from "signed off" plan in 2-4 weeks to draft 6 months later, with the key author abruptly resigning before draft is finalizled. basically, you're overreaching. confirmation bias is a b****
Were Otting's comments on the record?
Did you not read about a month ago when it was said Phillips would leave but not until he was done? It's not like his leaving was in the middle of the night... it was announced at least a few weeks before he departed.
Sure, confirmation bias is a b****, but mere confirmation from those calling the shots is a beautiful thing.