More Fallout from the bailout (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

tazzygirl -> More Fallout from the bailout (9/15/2009 5:38:22 AM)

Judge rejects settlement over Merrill Lynch bonuses

A federal judge has rejected a $33 million US settlement over bonuses paid by Merrill Lynch, and the New York attorney general is preparing to lay charges against the Bank of America executives who approved the bonuses.

In dismissing the settlement, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff called the $33-million figure that Bank of America Corp. had agreed to pay the Securities and Exchange Commission to settle the matter an "inadequate … trivial penalty for a false statement that materially infected a multi-billion-dollar merger."

Trial scheduled to start Feb. 1, 2010.

Charlotte, N.C.-based Bank of America agreed to acquire Merrill in a shotgun deal a year ago at the height of the credit crisis. After the deal closed, it emerged that Merrill, with the knowledge of Bank of America executives, accelerated $3.6 billion in bonus payments to high-ranking employees.

More charges likely
New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is said to be preparing separate charges against Bank of America execs over the bonus fiasco.

Quoting a person familiar with the situation who requested anonymity, The Associated Press reported that Cuomo is likely to file civil charges against high-ranking Bank of America executives over their role in failing to alert shareholders about the bonuses.

No charges have been filed yet, and neither Bank of America nor the SEC provided immediate comment on the settlement ruling.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2009/09/14/settlement-boa-merrill-charges.html?ref=rss
............
Judge Rejects Merrill Bonus Settlement, Quotes Oscar Wilde Federal Judge Jed S. Rakoff rejected the $33 million settlement that the Securities and Exchange Commission accepted from Bank of America over the $3.6 billion in bonuses paid to Merrill Lynch employees. BoA, which acquired Merrill, knew Merill was about to post $9 billion in fourth quarter losses yet went ahead with the bonuses; Rakoff found that BoA "materially lied" to shareholders about the losses.

Rakoff was also unhappy that the $33 million settlement would essentially be paid by the victims—the BoA shareholders—and wrote, "It does not comport with the most elementary notions of justice and morality, in that it proposes that the shareholders who were the victims of the bank's alleged misconduct now pay the penalty for that misconduct." And from the NY Times:

The judge also criticized the S.E.C., which has been trying to step up the profile of its investigations unit. The judge quoted Oscar Wilde’s “Lady Windermere’s Fan” in the end of his ruling to say that a cynic is someone “who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”

The proposed settlement, the judge continued, “suggests a rather cynical relationship between the parties: the S.E.C. gets to claim that it is exposing wrongdoing on the part of the Bank of America in a high-profile merger; the bank’s management gets to claim that they have been coerced into an onerous settlement by overzealous regulators. And all this is done at the expense, not only of the shareholders, but also of the truth.”


http://gothamist.com/2009/09/14/judge_quotes_oscar_wilde_while_reje.php

.....

Im mixed on this. How could so much money be changing hands, and no one found out till after the deal closed?





UncleNasty -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/15/2009 9:29:17 AM)

A nice find and post. This is still an emerging issue and area of the law.

There was another recent case I came across in the news, and through LexisNexis. It is likely available for free through LexisOne. The case of Greenwich v Countrywide.

Sometime last year 11 State AGs filed suit against BoA. BoA made an offer to modify $8.4 billion in mortgages. The AGs accepted and dropped the suit.

However, in securitized mortgages neither the originating lender nor the loan servicer are the current owner and holder of promissory note or mortgage. It is the investors in the securitized pool that are the owners and holders. What BoA did, as neither the owner or holder (in other words no longer party to the contracts), was to modify the loans and pass on the losses to the investors. They can't do this. So the investors sued BoA.

The Federal District court basically said that the investors are the holders and owners. It will be interesting to see the next step in this chain, and how far out the ripples in the pond reach. Most foreclosures are brought by a party that lacks the requisite legal standing to bring or file suit to begin with - that being the loan servicer.

Uncle Nasty



tazzygirl -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/15/2009 1:19:42 PM)

Thank you for the explanation. A question though... am i to understand that Mortgage companies arent the ones who can forclose? That part is still a bit fuzzy to me.



Louve00 -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/15/2009 4:09:14 PM)

lol, tazzy.  It's been fuzzy to me for a while.  I've learned tons from Uncle Nasty on these issues.  From all I've read, what it amounts to is if your mortgage company agrees to a modification of the mortgage, *unless* its a fixed mortgage, with or without a principal reduction, and unless they DO hold the mortgage loan, then its a scam.  They've altered nothing.  They've complied enough with federal legislature to work with homeowners...lowering their interesst rate (and usually tacking on to the principal in the name of "Capitalization fees"...then in a few months, or 1 year...everything goes back to the original terms.  I would assume, if your mortgage company (the servicer of your loan) is suing you for foreclosure, he is suing on behalf of the true investor.  It's a sticky mess and you really have to be up on the law to be able to understand the maze of procedures you can face.

Its my uneducated, but (in-the-process) of research about this.  The servicer of your loan can sue you for foreclosures.  But I would be interested to hear what UncleNasty says cuz I'm sure there is alot you, as a homeowner, would have to be aware of, have to be prepared to ask and act on, and have to be knowledgeable on what to ask on or file for, in a situation like that.



Termyn8or -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/16/2009 8:45:46 AM)

FR

So then, we had low interest fueling this, as well as aiding the inflation bubble which has apparently burst. A few insiders made a bunch of money and we all pay. Sounds eeriliy close to the warnings of Thomas Jefferson, cycles of inflation/deflation resulting in US citizens waking up homeless in the land fought for by their ancestors.

I think there are quite a few people involved in this whole thing who should be waking up in jail. The poor little banksters who made an honest mistake because they forgot how to do business, lost all their education and guile in the investing racket and sold their investors down the river without a paddle. Gimme a break, this was greed plain and simple. And don't forget, the trauma of this whole mess they created had caused a great deal of stress for them necessitating bonus' and vacations for all. I'm sure they had tears in their eyes when writing themselves those bonus checks, uh huh. They probably even started going to church.

T



popeye1250 -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/16/2009 11:00:17 AM)

Should people who make $200-$500k per year be getting "bonuses" in the first place?I can see giving someone who makes less than $100k a bonus.



UncleNasty -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/16/2009 10:51:48 PM)

Louve and Tazzy,

If you're interested you can read through these sections of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, CR 17 (real party in interest), and also Article 3, Parts 2 and 3 of the UCC. Links to such through Cornell Law are provided below.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule17.htm

http://www.law.cornell.edu/ucc/ucc.table.html

There are also recording statutes, as well as statutes of fraud, in the several states with each having its own variations and requirements.

The UCC relates to the promissory note (negotiable instrument) and has been adopted by every state in virtually identical form and content to the Federal. Most states have also based, in large part, their own rules of civil procedure on the federal rules. In my state the real party rule is almost identical to the federal and is even numbered as CR 17.

Recording statutes and statutes of fraud relate more specifically to mortgages and real estate transactions and are separate from negotiable instruments.

Your question is hard to answer Tazzy as I'm not sure how you're defining "mortgage company." In most instances these days a mortgage company would be better described as an alleged originating lender, or a loan servicer. A loan servicer cannot lawfully file and prosecute a foreclosure because they are not the real party in interest. They do this frequently and are successful at such because most defendants in foreclosures aren't legally sophisticated. Courts are also woefully lagging in their understandings of the complexities involved and commonly rule in favor of whatever party files the suit. But they are not entitled to the benefits at the termination of the suit and thus are not the real party in interest.

An alleged originating lender rarely maintains possession of the instruments for more than a few days so they have no rights to enforce either the financial instrument (p-note), or the security instrument (mortgage).

I use the term "alleged originating lender" because the party that appears to be funding a loan is rarely the party actually doing so. Typically shares in the pool, or trust, are sold to investors before the instruments even exist. The Trustee then passes the investors money to front or shell companies that generate the loans. Sometimes these front companies employ "mortgage brokers" as well. Ultimately the loans are funded by parties different than the named parties on the paperwork. This is usually referred to as "table funding."

Table funding creates further issues. By not disclosing the identity of the real lender borrowers have essentially an unlimited rescission period. How can a rescission be tendered if the real party is unknown? This violates TILA disclosure regulations. This is also an emerging area.

Hell, its all an emerging area.

As an aside I had an attorney contact me a few weeks ago. We'd had conversations about representation in my appeal several months ago. I sent her the pleadings in my Circuit Court case. She didn't bother to read them at the time and instead came to a rather abrupt conclusion that I was merely a pissed off guy that had lost a case. The rapid, ignorant and summary dismissal was fairly insulting.

Her recent email basically said "Gee, now that I've finally read your pleadings I can see the Circuit Court judge either didn't read your pleadings at all or didn't understand the complexities of your arguments and ruled against you erroneously. Now that I've read them I think you actually know what you're talking about. Would you be so kind as to send me a copy of your Appellant's Brief so that I can profit from your thousands of hours of research without actually having to do any work myself?"

I have refrained from response.


Uncle Nasty



Termyn8or -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/17/2009 7:19:05 AM)

"They do this frequently and are successful at such because most defendants in foreclosures aren't legally sophisticated."

This is not the only type of case in which this happens. I don't claim to be all that sophisticaled, but I can handle my own. In some cases beating a case is as simple as refusing to sign a waiver, usually of time constraints placed on the opposition by the law. In other words, if you have to sign the waiver, then why do you have to sign the waiver. And the multitudes generally take the easy way out. This can be in the form of a settlement, or taking an annuity for a settlement. More serious cases involve voluntarily signing away one's rights as part of a probation or parole agreement. Even worse is the plea bargain.

One of the worst examples that comes to mind is the KPMG case a few years ago. Even investment firms were bullied by the prosecution, and these are people who are supposed to know what they are doing. So competence is essential. Of course overconfidence is rampant in those circles, as well as in many of the supposedly Constitutional or common law activists.

Most people are so blissfully unaware of many things. Want to become a nontaxpayer ? Well the first thing is to realize what the 1040 form really is. People think it is some sort of invoice or something like that when it is in reality a contract. Once you sign it, your options become very limited. They also don't realize that once a nontaxpayer one can no longer vote as the courts will deem that as "signing up" - that's right - to pay taxes voluntarily. That point has not been litigated to a conclusion.

Enough on taxes for not desiring to hijack. On the mortgage issue, look for them to close the loopholes as soon as their losses begin to mount, that is as more and more people learn about the point UN brought up. I do believe that the lender can do this easily by a partial rewrite of the original loan contract. Have they done it ? Hard to say, would anyone like to scan a brand new loan origination agreement and post it after removing the specific information ? If their problem with this can be solved without legislation, you can believe that they'll get around to it. Then it will be time to find new loopholes, and believe me, they will never close them all, they simply don't want to. Those loopholes exist for their buddies to use.

As far as the bailout situation, the government should just say "You bought the loans, it's your job to collect, why don't you just sell some of the properties to get some operating capital ? ". When you had it good and were raking in the money like leaves in the fall you were all so happy. Now it is time to work and you are basically applying for welfare ? Get out of here.

Hmmm, trade practices of this 'government' have caused irreperable harm to my business, and through no fault of our own the bottom line has gone through the roof. The customers cannot pay what we must charge. They put us between a rock and a hard place. What we need is a bailout to buy newer and more sphisticated test equipment, some stock, and most importantly some higher education. Now who is the better candidate for a bailout ?

Now that I think about it, forget it. We have money, what we don't have is the time. They just can't cut a check for time.

T



Mercnbeth -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/17/2009 8:02:12 AM)

quote:

Should people who make $200-$500k per year be getting "bonuses" in the first place?


It's more pervasive in the private sector. I'll give you the logic behind it, but it won't make it any more/less palatable.

You have a company generating a gross profits of a Million dollars. You hire someone to come in and take it over. You tell him/her for they get a percentage of the profits over $1.5 Million. The difference representing the overhead for their base salary/benefits. The new hire does a hell of a job and generates $5 Million in profits and gets a $200,000 bonus to go with their $200,000 salary. As a business owner, would you reward someone similarly for improving your bottom line five fold?

Every company's pay and/or bonus structure should be based on the same logic. You pay for one set of results, you pay extra for extraordinary result, and you fire people who don't produce results. QED - Pragmatic. Somewhat convoluted when one division of the company doesn't know or is in competition with another division. The AIG situation had divisions working against the other, contributing to their downfall. Good thing the last, and current, Administration bailed them out or else those bonuses couldn't be paid.

I remember getting bonuses much greater than my salary when I worked for someone else. I used to be happy and excited about the prospect. However once I realized that to pay it, the company I worked for made it, usually in a multiple of what they were paying me; I planned my exit strategy and formed my own company and personal compensation package. The experience helped me form, my first rule of compensation. The only way you get paid exactly what you are worth, is to work for yourself.

What happens if you're worthless? The answer should be obvious - you go into politics or find government employment.



UncleNasty -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/17/2009 8:15:43 AM)

Yes, Term you are very correct in this. If we had a more informed and engaged citizenry our justice system in the overall would be functioning much differently. My opinion is that it would be functioning better.

Uncle Nasty



UncleNasty -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/18/2009 7:44:14 AM)

In terms of compensation I have no issue with large compensation, and large bonuses, as long as everyone is playing by "the rules" and those that don't are held accountable. Yes, we do have rules for these things, more commonly referred to as laws, regulations and statutes.

Rakoff has gotten this one right. A penalty that is basically 1% of the amount of the bonuses, and merely 0.33% of the 4th quarter losses, and further that is not assessed directly against either the parties that profited as individuals or the parties believed or proved to be guilty, but is passed on to other parties, is completely inadequate. Penalties of this type are much closer to the norm and are simply considered to be among the "costs of doing business."

If you knew you could profit greatly by breaking laws, had a slim chance of being caught and prosecuted, and even if prosecuted and convicted the penalty would be small in comparison to your profit AND you could have somebody else pay the penalty... Well, what would stop you from breaking the law and hurting others? Some would stop themselves because "its the right thing to do," but obviously not everyone scores so high on the Kohlberg ethics scale.

Rakoff used the term "materially lied." In the broad strokes it is against the law to profit by lying.

This is all pretty "sexy" right now, this catching of the "bad guys." A pity those with the power and responsibility to enforce the laws and protect the citizenry weren't doing such before the excrement hit the windmover.

Uncle Nasty



Termyn8or -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/19/2009 1:55:01 AM)

Hmmmmmmmmm, maybe fining people should simply be done away with. You go to jail. Now that would be interesting. Food for thought.

Incindentally, would anyone like to engage in a thread which asks "Where does that fine money go" ? Think about it, it does not go to the victims, nor the locsl community, it goes somewhere else. How many people here know where it goes ?

T



blacksword404 -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/19/2009 3:20:55 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl


Im mixed on this. How could so much money be changing hands, and no one found out till after the deal closed?



Same way Madoff was able to do what he did for as long as he did. Everyone turns around, looks at the sky and whistles.

And when they turned around those bonuses were gone.



hizgeorgiapeach -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/19/2009 5:38:52 AM)

Part of the problem here is that the Politicians - the ones writing the laws, statutes, and regulations, supposedly to protect the rest of us - are gaining financially as much as their buddies who are ignoring those laws and statutes.
 
Don't for one moment kid yourself into believing that the politicians aren't getting huge under the table payoffs from the multi-billion dollar ripoff artists who control both banking and real estate.  They're also getting huge up front payoffs by way of campaign contributions and such.  It's not in their Own best interests to actually write laws that Punish these guys - they'll lose all their Own backdoor money, campaign financing, and under the table Deal deals on choice properties.
 
Who is to blame for the politicians still getting away with this crap?  Oh yeah - that would be US - the voting public - for NOT voting them right out of office and getting a whole new crop of crooks in place for a while.  If we did, then perhaps the New crooks would at least be a Little more circumspect about how they accomplished it.



blacksword404 -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/19/2009 4:18:56 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach

Part of the problem here is that the Politicians - the ones writing the laws, statutes, and regulations, supposedly to protect the rest of us - are gaining financially as much as their buddies who are ignoring those laws and statutes.
 
Don't for one moment kid yourself into believing that the politicians aren't getting huge under the table payoffs from the multi-billion dollar ripoff artists who control both banking and real estate.  They're also getting huge up front payoffs by way of campaign contributions and such.  It's not in their Own best interests to actually write laws that Punish these guys - they'll lose all their Own backdoor money, campaign financing, and under the table Deal deals on choice properties.
 
Who is to blame for the politicians still getting away with this crap?  Oh yeah - that would be US - the voting public - for NOT voting them right out of office and getting a whole new crop of crooks in place for a while.  If we did, then perhaps the New crooks would at least be a Little more circumspect about how they accomplished it.


I can agree with that. We get the government we deserve. We have become to complacent about these thieves. Maybe that says something about us as a people. Maybe we have more in common with them than we would like to admit.



UncleNasty -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/19/2009 5:03:42 PM)

I am a victim of the ignorance of the masses.I'm getting the government THEY deserve, not the one I deserve.

LOLOL


Uncle Nasty



Musicmystery -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/19/2009 6:02:29 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Should people who make $200-$500k per year be getting "bonuses" in the first place?I can see giving someone who makes less than $100k a bonus.


I agree, especially in management.

You want a bonus, buy your company's stock. If that won't work for you, submit your resignation so we can get someone who can make it work.



blacksword404 -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/19/2009 6:07:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: UncleNasty

I am a victim of the ignorance of the masses.I'm getting the government THEY deserve, not the one I deserve.

LOLOL

Uncle Nasty



All you have to do is get them on the same page as you.



Termyn8or -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/20/2009 12:26:20 AM)

"Part of the problem here is that the Politicians - the ones writing the laws,"
 
 
Spot on Peach. But the real problem is how politicians are selected in the first place, and very few people give that much thought. I wll not quote here, but things look mighty true, the things I read years ago, and I am not talking about Orwell's 1984. Fact of the matter boils down to this, we are totally ignorant of this process in most cases. Thus we get Tweedle Dee or Tweedle Dum for whom to vote.
 
I am just about hashed out on this subject and want to talk terms and solutions, I know fully well how we got here, and indeed most of the fault does lay with the public, especially for letting this shit go on for so long.
 
The major problem is the We The People can no longer take a grass roots movement to the polls. By that I mean none of us have the resources to challenge the Tweedles. We need that ability, and to keep as long as possible, the few representatives who do actually work for the People. Yes there are some, Ron Paul for example. Jim Trafficant would have been a good example but things happened. We need someone squeaky clean. Actually untouchable. I mean never even stole a candy bar as a baby.
 
This person would not have graduated from the enhanced toga party classes at Harvard or Yale, they would come from a real college that teaches useful skills. Like managing money for a start. The bottom line, how to run a business without foreign aid. Things like that.
 
Then we have to have a voting bloc for them to even have a chance against the sheeple, who will vote for the one with the cuter smile, or promises them more welfare or some shit. Then we can move on, replacing these fucking suits with real Men (and Women) who will actually think about something other than their own wallet.
 
At that point, those in government who have any such ideals who were simply dragged down by the system might come around, being that it is a much more friendly environment for something like that. In time we could have a good government.
 
However as long as the candidates do not come from amongst the People we are screwed, because this is mainly a war of the classes, something that has been going on since the dawn of time, or society, or something. A long time whichever way you look at it.
 
The problem is time. Most of the sheeple can't think about anything in terms of decades, and in some cases even minutes. Fed up yet still craving instant gratification they will grasp at any straw, to maintain a ridiculous lifestyle of waste and what is now called consumerism. And it can be the most important thing in their lives. This draws me back to some people I used to know. A Mother of two and surrogate Mother of another, busted for shoplifting and in jail. Was she stealing a loaf of bread or a pork roast or something ? No she was stealing DVDs. What does this tell us ?
 
For us to ever do anything really effective we need the support of alot of people. The only way I can see to get that is to take away the toys. They need time to rethink what is important and what is not. They need to change, learn how the other half lives and so forth. They need to have their bubble burst, and the financial crisis is impelling exactly that. Maybe it is good that they are still screwing the little guy, in plain view, maybe one day the little guy will notice this and be stirred to action.
 
Part of surmounting this problem is of course finding, even among the People, someone we can really trust. They exist, but once elected, they have their term. They could stick it to us just as badly as the current crowd. Who can we really trust ?
 
I would say me, but how would you know that ? My words ? Words are part of what got us into this mess, along with the white teeth and the snazzy suit and tie. I want to see a candidate with a Tshirt and jeans, hopefully dirty. Better yet if he has a beer in his hand. Not drunk of course, but you know, a regular guy. Show me that I will be the most activated votingest MF in this state, until then, I have no interest.
 
Find one person. One who sees governence as a service, rather than an appointment to a glorious position, and I will show you a vote. I will show you as many as I can muster actually. Fuck these suits, the only thing they are good for is entertainment.
 
What's more, don't think this will be done overnight. Take a lesson from the Jews, who plan way ahead, some things multi-generationally. Look where they came from. They were in diaspora which means pretty much homeless, to having one of the most powerful nations on Earth. It may seem to have gone quickly, but that is not how it was. It was a long hard road, and they had to have some degree of solidarity to make it work. It worked, and that is what we need.
 
I have, in my mind, what could be a solution to the problem, that being that we are not properly represented. But how to get people to work together is the problem. It seems like the whole worlds' brains shut down once the TV goes on, or whatever. And the allure of entertainment is strong. I have tried to break it and can tell you right now, for some it is impossible. So do those people go through a painful readjustment or to the gallows ?
 
To really get this done, to do it right, would span many years, possibly decades. This at a time when people are actually worrying about where their next tank of gas or pack of cigarettes is coming from. Of course that might work to our advantage. Perhaps we should play on that.
 
The fact is though, with all the diversity of human nature, no one Man can figure out all the mechanics of such a mission. And another thing I can tell you from personal experience - is that there is very little help out there. We are on our own.
 
Sorry for being so longwinded, but by now you should no longer wonder why I like my intoxicants, and sort of live for today. I have plenty of faith in myself, it is the others in whom I lack faith, and that is due to direct exposure.
 
T



UncleNasty -> RE: More Fallout from the bailout (9/20/2009 7:14:49 AM)

Term,

In response to your email the other day, I was reminded of three pieces written by Max Gardener. Max runs what he calls "Bankruptcy Bootcamp" for attorneys down in North Carolina. There is a lot dishonesty on the part of creditors in bankruptcy proceedings, especially when homes/mortgages/foreclosures are involved. So Max teaches attorneys how to advocate for debtors in the face of the many layers of deception creditors attempt to push through the BK Courts.

Anyway, I recall when these essays first came out that I was impressed. Brief, fairly easy to understand, and very informative.

http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2009/08/the-alphabet-problem-and-the-pooling-and-servicing-agreements.html#more

http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2009/08/show-me-the-original-note-and-i-will-show-you-the-money.html#more

http://www.creditslips.org/creditslips/2009/08/the-lack-of-evidentiary-foundations-fosters-fraud.html#more


I also include here a link to an abstract of Katherine Porters (University of Iowa, College of Law) study "Misbehavior and Mistake in Bankruptcy Mortgage Claims." This was written in late 2007. Important to recognize that 1) bankruptcy is a trailing indicator not a leading indicator and is often caused by a foreclosure, 2) the same deficiencies on the part of creditors in bankruptcies are usually present in the underlying foreclosures, either judicial or non-judicial.

The abstract is only a couple of paragraphs. The full paper itself is only 40 pages or so, and is available to download through the link to the abstract.

Porter has also testified in front of at least one committee in re the financial mess. She continues to research the broader issue and to publish additional works.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1027961

Uncle Nasty





Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625