June 25, 2023
Ms. Vanessa A. Countryman,
First and foremost, thank you for the opportunity to comment.
As an investor, I respectfully reject and oppose the proposed Rule s7-06-22.
The idea of beneficial ownership for \"Cash-settled derivatives securities\" owners is outlandish to me. This is the equivalent of someone staking an ownership claim on your house just because they made a deal to purchase your house from a third party, unbeknownst to you. Furthermore, imagine these third parties being able to make decisions about what goes on in your home despite never having contacted you directly. Put in this context, I believe it is clear where the flaw in logic lies. This opens the door for bad actors to be able to place low-ball bids on your house (a company) for undue influence over it, to make decisions for you when they have never done business with you personally.
Common sense should dictate that if someone does not legally own a direct ownership stake within a company, that said person should not be able to directly affect the operations of that company.
A derivative contract, by nature, is equivalent to a third-party dealing and should not have any effect on the day-to-day operations of the underlying asset or business. It should be a product of the results, not a factor within the results.
Thank you again for the opportunity to comment and once again, I reiterate that I am opposed to Rule s7-06-22 for the above reasons.
Best Regards,
Nam Pham, CPA