Aug. 16, 2023
I do not endorse this proposal. My lack of support for this proposal remains, as the existing regulations ensure that control over a company's decisions remains vested in long-term investors who have a vested interest in the ongoing success of said company. They recognize the full scope of price and risk associated with a security, seeing it as a worthwhile cost in exchange for the opportunity to contribute to the company's achievements and influence decisions in alignment with their investment. I persistently maintain my opposition to this proposal. The current system not only empowers genuine investors who are genuinely invested in a company's growth and progress to play a meaningful role in specific decision-making processes, but it also offers companies insights into the extent of dedication and support dedicated to their causes, beliefs, and proposals by individual investors. Once again, I reiterate my lack of support for this proposal. As previously mentioned, restricting such rights to initial security holders provides companies with deeper insights into the convictions and perspectives of investors who perceive non-financial value in the business. This enhances the company's capacity to identify, address, and reward rights holders whose opinions align with the company's objectives and overarching ethos. It provides a greater assurance of congruence with those who acquired securities to champion these principles and the company's broader achievements, beyond mere financial gains. Approaching this scenario from a more skeptical standpoint, allowing external institutions to acquire these rights, potentially at a fraction of the cost compared to traditional investors through derivatives and other financial instruments, could result in an imbalance of representation. This might come at the expense of sidelining long-term investors—who bear the brunt of any ensuing decisions—and depriving them of their voices in these crucial matters. Jenny Oh