It was intended that Goldman not have any long stake on that piece. Is that correct?
You are out there selling these securities. This isn't someone walking in the door.
An amazing performance with a market that went under in mortgages.
That shows you----
But you guys wanted to take a heck of a lot more risk on shorts, and that is, according to your own numbers, what happen...
Using his criteria.
You said they only used half of the suggestions. I am asking you--they did not use, you said--or they did use half.
You are benefiting now from selling stuff from your inventory.
But it was the big short which kept you in the black that year, wasn't it?
Billions seem large to a lot of folks who have lost their homes.
You were consistently short. As a matter of fact, you were very short.
Do you see where the second paragraph says, 'At the end of the meeting, the Paulson team'--this is you speaking--'told u...
And your own person said they are too smart to buy this kind of junk.
You guys were profitable, and you were profitable because you had invested heavily in shorts.
That total is consistently below zero, home, throughout the whole year.
So you would agree that you were in a net short position for most of the year? Would you agree to that?
You are trying to shift the risk of that junk to somebody else.
You knew Paulson was on the short side of the trade. Is that correct?
