So this is a second reason why they would have a problem with--from a tax perspective--from what the claim of the long-term gain is.

You approve the process.

Did the banks, either of your banks, from these tens of millions of trades that were executed every year in your accounts for the option basket and from the billions of dollars of profits earned in those accounts, did your banks receive…

the IRS had spoken, and Barclays said, 'So what?'

Did you understand that Mosel, which signed the agreement with you, owned by RenTec, representing to you that it is not going to make decisions?

COLT provides an after-tax benefit to these investors through the conversion of their return from the fund from short-term capital gains (taxed at 39.6%) to long-term capital gains (taxed at 20%).

In recent years, this Subcommittee has devoted significant time and effort to exposing complex financial arrangements that profitable corporations and wealthy individuals employ to avoid their obligations to pay all their U.S. taxes.

But that is where your profits came from.

You are waffling because you are saying for some purposes it was controlled.

To my knowledge, no. However, I am aware that my control functions were in regular conversations with all of the external regulatory constituencies on an ongoing basis.

It is also something they are representing to the SEC that they do not control it.

Now, when Renaissance sends a marketable order using your software system to the stock market, 30 million--or, I guess--yes, 30 million a year between the two banks.

Now, I want to explore some of the fictions that I have referred to in some detail...

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?

I would adopt one of the Levin bills.

This gives rise to significant short-term capital gains for the investors regardless of whether or not they are invested in the fund for the shorter or longer term.

The reality is that tax reform is moving slowly and the inversions are moving very rapidly, and, as I indicated before, I think that is a prescription for real chaos.

Renaissance controls Mosel.

RenTec controls the major activities of Palomino and is exposed to substantially all significant risks and rewards.

Is this a serious representation when you tell the SEC that you do not control Palomino?

This algorithm was not just making changes by itself. It took human beings to make changes.

That is out of 30 million a year.

We took the GLAM very seriously.

I would say yes, although there is the word 'either' here, and I do not quite understand this formulation.

And would you agree that the reason that they put that in there is to give the appearance that the activity is not Renaissance's but the banks?