This is net short. This is all synthetics across the Mortgage Department, is that correct?

According to the figures which we got, net profits from shorts, $3.7 billion. Net losses from longs, including the inventory pieces, which had been there for some time, were $2.9 billion.

You participated in the deal as one of the protection buyers.

You are betting against the very product you are selling, and you are just not troubled by it.

Should you have told that client--when they asked how are you getting comfortable with this, should you have told them you were going short if you were?

I wouldn't trust you. If you came to me and wanted to sell me securities and you didn't tell me that you have a bet against that same security.

Goldman is selling Anderson securities to clients, but it is betting against that CDO.

This week the Senate is trying to consider major financial reform legislation that could have profound effects on our economy.

I have difficulty when a firm such as yours has a strategic position to basically invest against the market.

They thought you were actually holding the equity, which is being on the long side, right?

[F]remont refused to make any forward looking statements so we really got nothing from them on the crap pools...

My problem comes particularly where you are selling a security to someone... and at the same time, you are betting against it.

You told the Board that you reversed the long market position.

You don't believe it is relevant to a customer of yours that you are selling a security to that you are betting against that same security.

But you ended up with $2.5 billion of taxpayers' funds.

Should Goldman Sachs be trying to sell a shi**y deal?

Wall Street is on the wrong side of this fight.

How about the fact that you sold hundreds of millions of that deal after your people knew it was a (EXPLETIVE DELETED) deal. Does that bother you at all?

Is there not a conflict when you sell something to somebody and then are determined to bet against that same security and you don't disclose that to the person you're selling it? Do you see a problem?

You have the responsibility to tell that client of your adverse interests.

We are going to pass a bill before we find everything, and that is somewhat concerning to me.

Half of those items in the portfolio were suggestions that came from Paulson. Is that correct?

Do you think they know that you think something is a piece of crap when you sell it to them and then bet against it?

I think it is a very clear conflict of interest and I think we have got to deal with it.

And that group made, as I understand it, $3.7 billion on the short side, basically, right?