This is not accurate This is not true?

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

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

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

Let me just ask a couple questions quickly about synthetic CDOs.

Was there a delay in putting that new model in place?

But it may have been related to this issue, is that what you are saying?

So, in this case, these ratings were downgraded within a year and are now below investment grade. These are junk.

You needed more resources?

I am glad to hear that.

He sure put his finger on WaMu.

So market share mattered, in a nutshell.

How about David Bawden?

And she was asking for help?

Whenever S&P made a criteria change to its RMBS model and that change was more conservative than the previous model, did S&P retest the old deals to see if their structure still passed for rating purposes?

It seems to me it is obvious that you ought to distinguish between lenders.

This does constitute a 'risk' to ratings quality.

It was resolved. Were the resources adequate?

Do you folks care whether the collateral makes a difference?

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

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

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

So you didn't retest your old deals. You just disclosed the new rating to the marketplace?

Are you familiar with the practice, Ms. Barnes?

I could not agree with you more. But that is the culture that existed here.