Rule Proposal Critics Warned Could Harm Energy Security Rescinded Amid Mounting Scrutiny
CONTRIBUTOR
The New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) withdrew its proposal that would pave the way for “Natural Asset Companies” (NACs) to become a new type of financial product on Wednesday, according to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
The SEC had been considering a NYSE proposal to allow NACs to be listed and traded on the NYSE, a policy which would permit American lands and ecosystem services to serve as the basis for a novel financial product. The agency announced Wednesday that NYSE had withdrawn the proposal, ending the potential privatization of America’s public lands and associated risks for energy and national security, at least for the time being.
The SEC’s notice of the withdrawal did not specify the particular reasons that motivated the NYSE to abort its effort to bring NACs to market. The NYSE had partnered with the Intrinsic Exchange Group (IEG), a for-profit company backed by interests including the Rockefeller Foundation, to advance the NAC proposal.
“After reviewing feedback from regulators, market participants and others, we have withdrawn our proposed rule filing to enable the listing of Natural Asset Companies,” a spokesperson for the NYSE told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “We appreciate the work of Intrinsic Exchange Group, which approached us with the idea of creating this new asset class, as well as those who took the time to study this proposal and share their views with us.” (RELATED: Green Firm That Advised SEC On Proposed Emissions Rule Sold Carbon Credits From Chinese Region Known For Slave Labor)
Had the proposal gone into effect as a final rule, NACs would have been a brand new type of company aiming to improve ecosystems and ecosystem services of public or private lands, according to the NYSE’s proposal. Those ecosystems and their services would be the underlying value for NAC equity that would be tradable on the NYSE.
Opponents of the rule raised concerns that NACs could pose potential problems for property rights, as well as effective land management, productive economic uses of federal land and national security. The House Natural Resources Committee launched a probe of the proposal last week, citing concerns about productive land use and management as well as private interests potentially taking control of public lands.
Thirty state-level financial officials sent a comment letter to the SEC on Tuesday morning about the rule, urging the agency to reject the proposal because they considered it to be an “attempt to create economic value from processes not backed by economic activity.” The officials also expressed their concerns that the proposed novel accounting standards for NACs would not be suitable for U.S. capital markets, and that a lack of extensive restrictions on foreign investment could allow adversarial interests the opportunity to use NACs as a vehicle to hamper American energy security and economic development.
“IEG believes NACs are an important innovation and is committed to advancing NACs in the private markets. As an important tool for farmers, investors, sustainability, and conservation, we remain committed to NACs being traded in the public market so all investors have access to this tool,” Peter Kadushin, a spokesperson for IEG, told the DCNF. “We look forward to correcting misconceptions about NACs as the public sees the potential as the first NACs progress to market.”
The SEC referred the DCNF to the NYSE when reached for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact licensing@dailycallernewsfoundation.org.
To read more about the insanity of NACs, go to source of this abomination at the Intrinsic Exchange Group’s website.
“Opponents of the rule raised concerns that NACs could pose potential problems for property rights, as well as effective land management, productive economic uses of federal land and national security.”
Not necessarily. NACs could be beneficial for all those uses- depending on how you evaluate ecosystem services. Those who are against any sort of land mgt. would and DO claim that land mgt. is a negative- with loss of wilderness value, loss of biodiversity value, potential damage to soils, blah, blah. Their claims are valid is some cases but certainly not all.
But, if the evaluation can be done otherwise- with excellent land mgt. you can get improved biodiversity, improved aesthetics and with for example, excellent forestry, you can get MORE carbon in the forests. The wilderness value of course will be reduced but it’s not rational to conclude that the sum total of ecosystem values will be reduced from land mgt.
Another problem is that those who ponder ecosystem values utterly ignore economic values- which is crazy.
‘Not necessarily.’
Yes necessarily. Any system that takes economic decision making out of the hands of property owners and puts it into the hands of a collective runs downhill until it collapses. Period.
I’m well aware that much land is owned / managed publicly, supposedly for the public good, but that brings up questions like why it’s good for the public to prohibit offshore drilling at the same time offshore wind developers are encouraged to pound away on their sonars and pile drivers.
Not necessarily. I believe that some kibbutzs in Israel work that way.
I’m no expert on kibbutzim, but I kinda doubt the intent of the residents is to take the land out of production.
The Tragedy of the Commons is the perfect example of “communal” control of land. It only takes one party to spoil the benefits. When that party is “recognized” by the government you can bet everyone else using the Commons will suffer.
I see this as analogous to leveraged buyouts. If an investor thinks the landowner/ asset owner is not making maximum productive use out of an asset, he is free to try to purchase it and try to improve its productivity or resale value. The NAC proposition of improving the value of someone else’s property, somehow gaining title to the heretofore unvalued ‘services’ provided by the property, outside of an arrangement with the beneficial owner, looks like yet another scam on par with selling vaporware.
I don’t know how all of that stuff would work but I do see it adding yet another layer of administrators and bureaucrats to the mix. Therefore I am against it, I don’t care for bureaucrats or administrators public or private.
Peter Kadushin, who handled global PR and issues management at Amazon, has joined Trident DMG as VP.
At Amazon, Kadushin focused on areas including product liability, intellectual property, counterfeit products and fake reviews.
Kadushin has political experience gained from serving as communications director for Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, who currently is a senior advisor to President Biden and Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan.
He also did a deputy communications director stint for New York Mayor Bill DeBlasio, where he coordinated public messaging on high-profile issues (e.g., police-involved shootings, terrorist threats and power outages).
Kadushin also handled PR for the United Federation of Teachers and reported for the New York Post and Daily News.
Based in DC, Trident DMG is a strategic communications, crisis management and legal PR shop co-founded by Lanny Davis, Eleanor McManus, Adam Goldberg and Joshua Galper.
Kadushin worked his way up producing progressive flack at a local level and is now a Democratic contender, maybe a serious spot in the new Biden administration if he checks all the boxes in the weird personal inventory.
https://youtu.be/RzmdW3rFZEE
wrong video, please ignore
This is strange situation. There’s no on-line connection between IEG and this case.
Well, there is this: https://www.intrinsicexchange.com/en/team
If they want to privatize public lands. Just go ahead and sell it to the highest bidder. The government owns way too much of this country.
Green leverage. This approach would allow the heavy lifting, i.e., purchasing the assets, to be done using government friendly pension funds and the usual WEF suspects in asset management, in effect allowing the green donor class to simultaneously maintain their 1% lifestyles and support their favored political leaders.
Not so fast. The highest bidder will probably be the Chinese government.
‘To read more about the insanity of NACs, go to source of this abomination at the Intrinsic Exchange Group’s website.‘
Good idea, but demoralizing. Every page reads like a particularly bad piece of NPR or BBC programming.
This just urban parasites doing what they do best, sucking the life from those that actually produce.
The NYSE has made the right decision. Only organisations whose prime purpose is to make money should be traded on stock exchanges; they are the only ones on which a value can be put as a guide to the price they should be trading at. Unless, of course, someone can invent a virtue-signalling index!