Carl Levin

Is there any evidence that market share drove ratings? Have you seen it? Have you looked at these exhibits?

Are you familiar with the practice, Ms. Barnes?

I think you have a long way to go in acknowledging what happened to your agencies.

Ratings are assigned by committee, not individuals. However, entire committees, entire departments are susceptible to market share objectives.

In July 2007, did you know who David Goldstein was?

If you would have done them a year earlier when you had information that the market was going under and was in trouble...

This is not accurate This is not true?

Would you agree that there was great pressure to feed the origination machine?

When you say, you shouldn't operate from consensus, it says that there is a strong internal emphasis on market share.

There were a lot of reasons for the 2006 loans that were going bad so quickly.

Was that satisfactory, to have that kind of a backlog?

And she was asking for help?

It would have resulted in downgrades for many of the RMBS securities.

The bank got their way. Don't assign that person to me from now on.

Yes, but you could removed analysts. You might have remove analysts for that reason.

It mattered to them.

You are trying not to answer the question.

Did investment bankers apply pressure in connection with rating analysts during the rating process?

Well, I could not agree with you more.

And were you or your staff aware at the time that Moody's was working on the ABACUS rating that Paulson was shorting the assets in ABACUS?

All right. Mr. Raiter, going back to you again, you had insufficient data to predict how a new loan would perform.

Should those numbers be massaged to preserve market share? Does anyone believe that?

And have you seen reports that the Paulson firm shorted the ABACUS transaction using Goldman Sachs as its agent?

Was there a fee charged for surveillance?

It is so clear, it is so obvious, there is such a fundamental conflict here to me.