|
To: Rule Comments
Dear Sirs, I have read the input of the previous 10 who commented and feel I cannot express my thoughts better than my namesake. In the interest of convenience I will transcribe the part containing what I wish to underscore: If the industry told investors the truth - that they paid their money but didn't receive their shares, or alternatively, that they don't own their shares (as their broker leant them out to a short seller) - then there would be widespread investor outrage. That is why the elaborate obfuscation mechanism is necessary, to create a facsimile of legitimacy, and fool investors into believing that they are receiving the right to vote, when they don't have that right. That is an artifice to defraud, in my opinion, to trick investors into believing something is true which clearly isn't, and I would welcome anyone to challenge that simple, easy-to-understand apprehension of the situation. One share one vote. Simple. The current system makes a mockery of that fundamental right. I would suggest that the commission fix that, before debating the merits of paper versus pixels. Sincerely, John O’Brien |