Carl Levin

They had the authority, but they never exercised it.

Is there any practical way in which 30 million trades a year could be 30 million recommendations?

The question of ownership is a facts and circumstance question looking at all the facts.

We took the GLAM very seriously.

But it was targeted at funds that were involved in short-term trading.

You do not say for trading activities. You just say they are not controlled.

That is progress. That is year after year after year, right?

You represented it was not.

Is it not true that they had discretionary--"they" being RenTec--has total discretion, full discretion and authority without obtaining your prior approval to manage the investment in the trading of the accounts?

It gave direct access to the stock market. RenTec executed tens of millions of trades per year in Barclays' Palomino accounts.

So in other words, you did not tell the SEC that we do not control this for SEC purposes, but we are going to claim we control it for tax purposes?

Basically Palomino was restricted to basket option transactions with Renaissance and could only use Renaissance as the investment advisor...

Did you know that RenTec--when you were told in this agreement--was represented to you that Mosel was not going to be making the decisions?

If there were no rate differential between long-term and short-term capital gains, the Tax Code would be far simpler, far more certain, and far more fair.

And that benefit was turning short-term capital gains into long-term capital gains.

And if you operated within the guidelines, you considered that that decision as to what to buy and sell was yours.

That you two had agreed to.

You just said that Deutsche Bank gave permission to Renaissance to trade in Deutsche Bank's accounts.

The purchase would have been prevented, the transaction would have been prevented if it violated the guidelines.

But that is where your profits came from.

So Mosel is telling Deutsche Bank, we are not going to make a recommendation, but the entity, it does not say, that controls us is going to make the recommendation, right?

So RenTec is making a judgment on RenTec.

The IRS has recently experienced budget reductions that do constrain the resources that are potentially available for large partnership audits.

It was not control the substantial risk. It was exposed to substantially all significant risks.

So substantially all significant risks were taken by RenTec.