We don’t know what’s behind the drive to get the Securities and Exchange Commission to allow “natural asset companies” to be traded on the New York Stock Exchange.

Is it part of a globalist plot to usurp private property rights, or just a scheme to extract listing fees and commissions from virtue investors?

With so many unanswered questions, we support the SEC’s decision to slow down and take a harder look at the proposal.

The NYSE and Intrinsic Exchange Group, the private company floating the proposal, say NACs would end the “overconsumption” of land and “underinvestment” in nature.

Companies would license “ecosystem services,” such as climate stability, and bar mining, “unsustainable logging,” “traditional fossil fuel development” and “industrial agriculture” on public and private land.

The NYSE credits Intrinsic with developing an “an accounting framework” to measure the performance of ecosystem services such as carbon sequestration, biodiversity, clean water and climate stability.

NACs would be required to value ecosystems using Intrinsic’s proprietary reporting framework, according to the proposal to the SEC.

Intrinsic would make money by putting a value on clean water and other “environmental services,” and with the NYSE would get a piece of every trade. How does anyone else make money?

Stock prices for NACs would be set based on the value Intrinsic places on the ecosystem. Once they go public, their shares could be bought and sold by investors hoping to burnish their environmental reputations.

It’s possible that the value of the “environmental services” could increase, thus pushing up the stock prices and potential profits for investors.

Under the proposal, Intrinsic and the NYSE would make money on every trade. Their profits would add up pretty quickly, and would seem to be a straight-forward motive for the creation of this novel security type.

The lack of solid information has prompted concerns that the offering is actually a nefarious plot to buy up huge swaths of farmland, or through leases rob owners of their property rights.

Public companies can already buy farm and forestland. But, to be traded on the stock exchange under the current rules there has to be economic activity. The land has to be used — or held for some future use. Private companies can buy or lease property and do absolutely nothing with it.

NACs would be able to access market capital without the promise of economic activity. There are a number of reasons why investors would buy such a stock, and no doubt the companies could raise a lot of money to offer owners.

But NACs could only buy or lease from private owners what they are willing to sell or lease. Exercising disposition is a primary property right.

To succeed, a plot would need a lot of willing sellers. But, given time and money, it’s possible.

We are concerned that state and federal land managers might seek to convey grazing, mining and timber leases to NACs. That would be a gamechanger that would impact farmers and ranchers.

The SEC should not approve this novel idea, at least not until a lot more questions are answered.