Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:44 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is an insult to the itellegence of the individual investor for the Wall
Street analyst to suggest that they should get information that sould not be
available to the whole investing public. The report of The Ad Hoc Working
Group on Proposed Regulation FD and the Legal and Compliance Division of the
Securities Industry Association ("SIA") is self-serving. More and more of us
are doing serious research and our own investing over the internet. Those of
us who are doing so are not day traders but those seeking quality companies
that we want to hold long term. Keep the impformation available for all. Why
should a select few have a monopoly or quasi inside information that we have
to get spoon fed through them?
Please make the process open?
Stanley Jewell
9350 W. 90th Dr.
Westminster, Co. 80021
303-421-5568
sej082349@cs.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:54 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "PROPOSED REGULATION FD:FILE NO. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
A SYSTEM WHEREIN SELECT INDIVIDUALS ARE GIVEN INFORMATION PERTINENT TO THE
FORTUNES OF A PUBLICLY TRADED COMPANY WHILE THE STOCKHOLDERS ARE KEPT WAITING
TO ACCESS THE SAME INFORMATION IS WITHOUT A DOUBT A CORRUPT SYSTEM AND SHOULD
BE MADE ILLEGAL. THE "SIA" ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO ANY PROPOSED LAW TO DO
JUST THAT IS PURE BULL SHIT.
WILLIAM JOHANSEN
2736 N. MULE DEER WAY
MERIDIAN ID 83642
Author: John Johnson at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support requiring companies to conduct open fora for disclosure of
new information to investors, which would allow individual investors, like
myself, to hear new information at the same time as the analysts and their
favored customers. Since a number of publicly-traded companies have begun
making their conference calls available to individuals on a listen-only basis,
the experience has been a revelation for me. You can read all you want, and
crunch the numbers, but there are many nuances about future company strategies
and risks, the degree of management confidence in the outlook, etc. which are
only revealed when one can listen to the voice intonations and/or see the body
language. I hope you will cease the current practice of limited disclosure,
which is nothing more than a license for the Big Boys on Wall Street to stick it
to the small investor. Selective disclosure is another version of trading on
insider information, and should no longer be permitted. Thank you!
Author: "craig johnson" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reguation FD no.S7-3199
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs:
I believe that as much information that is given to major stockbrokers
should also be given to the individual stock holders.
Thank You
Craig Johnson
Author: Richard K Johnson at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:31 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
The elitist attitudes fostered by the Securities Industry Association
smack of what's wrong with the system, not what is right.
"It hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary and
very valuable function in the U.S. capital market. They,
together with the media, are the principal way in which
important financially significant information (including
information contained in prospectuses and reports filed with
the Commission) effectively reaches most investors and
gets reflected in the marketplace. The alternative model of
millions of individual investors and potential investors poring
over prospectuses and periodic reports is highly theoretical
and out of sync with the real world."
Restrictive forms of government that control the flow of information are
the ones that are out of sync with the real world. Businesses that
provide valuable services and products to their clients will flourish in
an open market. Those that do not will perish. I certainly would not
expect that full service brokerages will perish in an open market. They
do provide a valuable service.
The question is not that. Rather it is, should they restrict and
control or should they serve. In an open market, businesses should
stand on their own and provide services.
The power of a knowledgeable and educated populace is phenomenal.
Regards,
Richard K. Johnson
Brentwood, CA
Author: "Ronald E. Johnson" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:58 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
This is to encourage passage of the subject rule to require, among other
things,
that companies no longer engage in the practice of discreetly
disclosing important information to Wall Street analysts without also
giving that information to the public at large.
In so far as "subtle ways such as changes in choice of words or tone of
voice": Recordings of interviews are and can be made available to the
public via the internet using RealAudio for example. The public can
hear the briefing and make their own conclusions.
I have seen a security price change dramatically without any news being
public. It's not right for analysts to have info ahead of the
individual investor.
Ronald E. Johnson
210 Seneca Terrace
Pasadena, MD 21122
Author: "Ken & Sandy Jones" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation. File 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Place our name with those who support the above regulation, this would level the
playing field considerably between the analyst and the common investor.
Kenneth & Sandra L. Jones
242 Troon Way
Lebanon Pa . l7042-4151
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:18 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File: S7- 3l -99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please register me in favor of the above regulation;
Joan V. Jones
Author: "Nicholas Kappas" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:24 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Support fair disclosure. An educated and informed public is essential is the
backbone of democracy and free market economy.
Nick Kappas
Author: "Allen P. K. Keesee" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg FD File no S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs --
As an attorney, as a shareholder in a number of companies listed on
various Exchanges and most of all as a US citizen interested in the
preservation of egalitarianism in this country, I write in support of the
above captioned Rule.
The arguments advanced against the Rule by the Securities Industry
Association are sophistic, and generally false in their assertions of a
special calming and insightfully-educative effect of brokerage professions,
and do nothing more forcefully than to encourage the (I believe) widespread
view among Americans -- investor and non- investors alike -- that there
is one "market" for the public at large and a different one for -- not so
much corporate or issuer but -- securities trading insiders.
Nothing would be more insidiously detrimental to the long term --
regardless of short and mid term markets advances -- economic and political
cohesion of American society than the apparent validation of such views by a
failure to enact this Rule, long over due, to suppress such privileged
trading and restore a semblance of true (strong-form) efficiency to what
knowledgeable observers and the general public now believe is basically a
lottery where the general public may occasionally "get on a roll" as over
the past year or so but usually have to make best guesses at all nine lotto
numbers, while a select and privileged few, over a martini or quick phone
call, are given the first seven or eight, gratis.
Very truly yours,
Allen P. K.
Keesee,
Herndon, Va.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The arguments by the special interests, analysts and issuers of financial
information that the individual investor doesn't need a more level playing
field, that the "good ole boy" method of disseminating information through
analysts is fair to all and that I as an individual investor cannot interpret
financial information on my own with the middleman analysts is total
nonsense. I strongly advocate the passage of this new rule/regulation to
enhance the individual investors opportunities in the open market.
Alan E.Kennedy
509 Falmouth St.
Temple Terrace, FL 33617
Author: Rose Kinnebrew at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:19 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
I don't like the idea of stock analysts getting preferential treatment
over the investors who do their own research. Those analysts act as if
all little investors were born yesterday and need to be protected from
themselves.
There are some of us that have the time, enthusiasm and background to do
our own research.
All we need is the timely information. Can you help see that we get it?
Rose Kinnebrew B. S, M.S, RPCV & M.O.T. (mother of
ten)
Author: Doug Kirby at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs,
I favor passage of this ruling that will allow full disclosure of
information to all investors. As an individual investor, I welcome
the opportunity to be better informed.
Regards,
Sue Kirby
Author: "Bud Kocher" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen
The public must have fair and equal access to company information.
Information regarding public companies is not the private domain of industry
analysts -- it is public information!
C. E. (Bud) Kocher, private investor and enemy of the Wall Street Status Quo
Dallas, Texas
Author: "Martin H. Kramer" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:52 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am an individual investor with a portfolio of about $800,000 in common
stocks which I manage myself relying on publically available
information. I have seen many instances where analysts have been
priviliged to receive important information before the general public,
and it has affected stock prices as favored brokerage customers were
told privately before the news was generally known.
The only fair approach is to have a level playing field for information
that affects the price of securities. The proposed regulation is long
overdue.
Martin H. Kramer
2830 Saint Paul Street
Baltimore, MD 21218-4311
410-235-2870
Author: "ckuharski" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The regulation reeks of self serving individuals. Simply put, these
analysts know that they are not good enough to complete with the individual
investor. If the indiviual investor has a 'knee-jerk' reaction, then let
then reap the benefits or loss. But let them have that chance. The logic
that is is for the individual investor's 'own good' is so incorrect, that is
borders on disgust.
I understand the fear that mobs are mindless, and individuals are smart.
But again, that has always been proven wrong throught history.
From,
Charlie Kuharski
Level the playing field and quit hiding. If I want 'ferreting' services or
management 'spin' insight, I'll pay for it.
Author: "M. Lahtinen" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:56 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
My name is Matti Lahtinen and I am writing in support of the proposed
regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99. I believe that the current practice of
disseminating information to analysts, and other entities in market
influencing positions, before allowing the general public access to the same
said information borders on criminal.
We currently have in place insider trading regulations which do not allow
employees of a company to trade their companies securities until a
reasonable time after earnings have been announced. This regulation was
enacted, I believe, to prevent sources close to knowledge from having an
unfair advantage in the market, yet the activities the Wall Street analysts
participate in seem to violate this same spirit by allowing wealthy clients
of large brokerages to get the jump on the Street and either make larger
profits or avoid losses whichever the case may be.
I believe that based upon the current investing statistics, you must realize
that a large portion of the voting public is invested in the market in one
form or another. I believe the general public deserves the right to make
properly informed decisions on where they place their hard-earned money
without the specter of unseen "Big Money" stacking the deck before the cards
are dealt to them.
I would like you to pass Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
Matti Lahtinen
Author: Robert Lall at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:25 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: tmfmax@aol.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The following questions were posed by Bill Barker in a column published
by Motley Fool:
1) Is it true that "it hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary and
valuable function in the U.S. capital markets"? Is it true that to perform that
necessary and valuable function they need better information than the
participants in the market?
2) Is it true that, the "alternative model of millions of individual investors
and potential investors poring over prospectuses and periodic reports is highly
theoretical and out of sync with the real world"?
3) Is it true that analysts make the markets less volatile?
4) Is it true that analysts spend much of their time ferreting out negative
information about companies?
My answers to these questions are as follows:
1. Valuable function in the US capital markets? Valuable for whom? Valuable to
the brokerage firm. By having it prior to the general public's having it they
garner an unfair advantage over the self directed investing portion of the
general public. The utter absurdity of such an assertion is obvious on its face.
Please level the playing field by passing this rule.
2. A cursory examination of internet message boards specifically set up for the
exchange of ideas about public companies shows this assertion to be utterly
without foundation. Individual investors in large numbers do read prospectuses
and are quite capable of and legally should be entitled to have access to such
information at the same time as the investment analysts for brokerage firms who
seek an unfair advantage in opposing this rule. It will be an egregious
injustice if the rule is not passed.
3.The reaction of the markets to the release of recommendations to buy or sell a
given security and intended effect of such recommendations is hardly to prevent
market volatilaty but in fact to increase it to enhance the market moving power
of said analysts. Stop this unfair distribution of the power of the information
priviledged brokerage firms by passing this new rule now.
4. The fact that 99% of the analysts' recommendations are to buy any given
security is clear evidence of the conflict of interest inherent in the current
arrangement as well as the considerable doubt about analysts objectivity in
ferreting out negative information. The posing of these issues by the lobbyist
for the brokerage industry provides the most compelling argument for the passage
of this proposed rule.
Robert Lall
4000 Farm Hill Blvd. #201
Redwood City, CA. 94061
Author: John Larson at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:55 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please allow the individual investor the same access to inormation as
the Analysts.... The current system is absolutely unfair to the public.
Sincerely,
John T. Larson
Author: Bin Li at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:21 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Please pass Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
My name is _____Bin Li______ and I am writing in support of the proposed
regulation FD:File No. S7-31-99. I believe that the current practice of
disseminating information to analysts, and other entities in market
influencing positions, before allowing the general public access to the
same said information borders on criminal.
We currently have in place insider trading regulations which do not
allow employees of a company to trade their companies securities until a
reasonable time after earnings have been announced. This regulation was
enacted, I believe, to prevent sources close to knowledge from having an
unfair advantage in the market, yet the activities the Wall Street
analysts participate in seem to violate this same spirit by allowing
wealthy clients of large brokerages to get the jump on the Street and
either make larger profits or avoid losses whichever the case may be.
I believe that based upon the current investing statistics, you must
realize that a large portion of the voting public is invested in the
market in one form or another. I believe the general public deserves the
right to make properly informed decisions on where they place their
hard-earned money without the specter of unseen "Big Money" stacking the
deck before the cards are dealt to them.
I would like you to pass Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
Author: "Ted Linden" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:27 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I've read parts of the SIA (Securty Industries Association) argument against
making comments by companies equally available to everyone. I can't believe
they are really making these arguments with a straight face. While they
argue that most of the public needs to get it's information through security
analysts, this argument can only be valid if analysts don't use or disclose
information from exclusive meetings before they disclose their
interpretation to everyone. I believe analysts routinely tell large and
favored clients about their most recent insights before they make them
available to everyone. The SIA argument falls apart totally as soon as one
realizes that analysts have no requirement to distribute their insights
equally to everyone.
It seems to me that everyone should be on equal footing when it comes to
receiving information from companies. Since the analysts certainly won't
distribute their information equally to everyone, the only place where
equality can be enforced is in what company officials say to the public; so
clearly Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 is doing the right thing and I urge
you to ignore the self serving input from SIA.
*******************************************************
Ted Linden linden@computer.org
2245 Tasso St. 650-327-2973
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Author: "Joseph Livesay" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:02 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-00
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I believe that fair distribution of information on public traded companies
should also be disclosed to the general public and not limited to only Wall
Street analysts. Thank you.
Joseph D. Livesay
Longmont, CO 80504
Author: "Alex Lowson" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:37 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
In my estimation the system whereby companies give information to
professional "analysts" before it is available to the general public
benefits nobody but the analysts.
While it may be true that the average private investor will not make any use
of such information, even if it was available, this doesn't mean that making
it available to the informed investor will damage the economy. I think all
it will damage is the income of the analysts.
I strongly support Regulation FD, and so would most people if they were
aware of the issue.
Alex Lowson
Hatch MottMacdonald
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:41 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
I think any information a company discloses to any wall street analyst,
should be disclosed and available to any person who wishes to take the time
to read it. Allowing companies to release information to only a few selected
analysts is unfair to the majority of people who wish to make their own
investment decisions.
The rule (Proposed Regulation FD) would require, among other things, that
companies no longer engage in the practice of discreetly disclosing important
information to Wall Street analysts without also giving that information to
the public at large. It's a pretty commonsense rule in my opinion, one that
should already be the law of the land, but unfortunately isn't.
1) Is it true that "it hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary
and valuable function in the U.S. capital markets"? Yes I believe they do
in their own way, albeit oft times in a reverse manner than might be expected.
Is it true that to perform that necessary and valuable function they need
better information than the participants in the market? Absolutely not. The
general public, that's me by the way, deserve access to the same information
as the so called analysts. To have it otherwise is saying insider
information use and abuse is ok.
2) Is it true that, the "alternative model of millions of individual
investors and potential investors poring over prospectuses and periodic
reports is highly theoretical and out of sync with the real world"? Wake up
folks. It is happening right now. I'm one of the millions and I carefully
research every investment I make, as well as follow what is going on in the
companies and the world market. I do it by the internet. It's easy. It
would be easier if I had access to all the information instead of only
partial disclosure.
3) Is it true that analysts make the markets less volatile? No. I think
analysts can contribute to major market swings when they make dire analyses
about which way a market is going to go, or a company is going. They make
mistakes, and these mistakes can cause some real roller coaster rides. With
my research I think I have a better handle on when to stick with a company
rather than buy and sell on the humps, and to stick with the market, knowing
that my long term investments are sound. In this manner I, an individual
investor, have a direct effect reducing market volitility.
4) Is it true that analysts spend much of their time ferreting out negative
information about companies? From what some analysts say, and then retract,
I would say their "ferreting" is pretty low key. I would bet I spend as
much time and probably much more time on individual issues than they do.
After all it's my money I protect by being careful. I also ferret positive
information, i.e. a balanced view by trying to collect all the information I
can. The proposed regulation would aid me in getting a balanced view of a
company, thus leading to a more accurate choice.
I fully support the proposed regulation FD.
Doug MacCoy
Author: Gwen Maisenhellder at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:58 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
Common sense dictates that publicly traded companies disclose
information to the public; not just whisper it to analysts working on
Wall Street. We, the investors, in these companies certainly should be
given the same information at the same time as the analysts. Frankly, I
am surprised that such is not the case already.
Gwen Maisenhelder
2830 Dunkirk Drive
St. Louis, MO 63119
gwenm41@swbell.net
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor with some financial acumen, I am all
in favor of having publicly traded companies release important
financial/operations information to everyone at the same time
and on an equal basis. I will make my own decision on whether
it bodes ill or well for the company's future. Sincerely, Walker
Mannes
-----
Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html )
The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!
Author: Chuck at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
In my humble opinion the market place works best when all information is
distributed fairly and openly to all individuals.
To restrict the flow of information to a "select few", aside from being
elist, goes against the "efficient" market theory.
Only when information is open to all will the markets be free from biased
conflicts. How much faith can we put in an anylysts report when he or she
works for a brokerage firm that is the said companies investment bankers or
underwriting it's stock or bond. The potential for conflict is very strong.
The only way to avoid this is get all information out to all investors and
not a select few.
Chuck Maguire
770-664-6438
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: FD: File No S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
It is rare that I send my opinion on any proposed legislation, rule, or
ordinance, but in this case I must. Please accept this correspondence as a
resounding affirmative for the enactment of the above. I have banged my way
around this world for the last 55 years on my own, and I cetainly do not need
an analyst to separate the wheat from the chaff as far as my investment
decisions are concerned.
Kenneth G. Martin
2701 Millwood Road
Birmingham, Alabama 35243
Author: "Gary Maxey" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:40 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC:
This real is needed for the average investor like me to have a fair and
equitable chance in the market. I believe the main street investor should
have the same access to information as the Wall Street boys. They are in
the business of making money off other peoples investment, I am in the
business of trying to make a buck or two for my family. It is beyond me
why anyone can see fairness in allowing such an uneven playing field to
continue. Please pass the proposed regulation. Thank you.
G. Maxey
Enid, OK
gmaxey@peakonline.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
We definitely need this change.
Jack McClintock
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:58 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: barbara_mccullough@dell.com at Internet
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
regarding the fair disclosure of information by publicly traded companies to
the public:
As an individual investor I believe that all pertinent info should be
disclosed by every publicly traded company to everyone. The fact that this
is not already a requirement is almost unbelievable.
Sincerely,
Barbara McCullough,
Dell Computers
Author: Terry McElligott at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:30 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think it is complete and utter $#%@&$% that companies are allowed to
give priviledged and private information concerning their business to
just a few Wall Street analysts. How does leaking this information to a
few individuals give the other 99% of the investors a level playing
field? Is it assumed that I, as an individual investor, am too ignorant
to understand the information without having a middleman to explain what
he thinks he heard? Or is it that the companies and analysts want it
this way to preserve status quo which is so beneficial to both? After
all, the companies want someone who will present their case in the most
favorable light for them. And the analysts want to be one of the
priviledged few who the companies talk to in order to enhance their power
and command higher salaries. How can a situation such as this not be
open to abuse by both sides?
Please, seriously consider changing the rules to ensure fair disclosure
of information to the public by all publicly traded companies.
Thank you for your time,
Terence J. McElligott
(private investor)
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:58 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
The notion that analysts must filter information for the general public is
the most ridiculous idea I've heard in a long time. If analysts are so
smart, why are they still working? They should have been able to retire to
the easy life long ago, if they are the only ones who know the "truth".
For me, give me the information. If I don't know how to use it, I can
certainly learn.
McG :-)
Author: "Michael K. McReal" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Fair disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support your efforts to ensure that fair disclosure is provided to all, thus
eliminating what is now privileged information to the analyst community.
Companies must be required to disclose Information in a consistent and timely
manner to all interested parties.
To allow a method that shows preference to any group is just plain wrong.
This regulation should made official, regardless of the special interest lobby
(SIA) who no doubt is trying to convince you that the current system of
privileged disclosure to the people they represent, is in the best interest of
the public. Give me a break!
Author: "JDM" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:08 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hello,
I support the proposed new rule.
I think that the current system should be changed with regards to
disclosure. The practice of discretely disclosing information to analysts is
wrong.
I am an investor, the current practice gives an unfair competetive advantage
to analysts. I can analyze information as well as anyone else.
Joseph Daniel Melton --- an individual investor
Author: "john j. meserko" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File no. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
I wish to add my support to the proposed regulation above. I believe that no
advanced information concerning any company should be given to any individual or
group of individuals without, simultaneously, being given to the public. I am a
responsible investor who spends a great deal of time pouring over company data
in order to make responsible investment decisions. I am essentially 100%
invested in the stock market and current data is extremely important to me. I am
a long term investor but I am always prepared to make changes in my portfolios
when I feel that an investment is not tracking along with my investment goals
and objectives.
I do utilize investment professionals when necessary but I make the ultimate
decisions when it comes to my family's future. The Securities Industry
Association, SIA, would have us believe that they should be given an "exclusive"
to current data before it is released to the public. This is a clear violation
of my rights as an investor. Business data can affect a company's stock in many
ways. If a group of individuals has insider privilege, they can influence the
market in ways different than if the data became immediate public knowledge and
the immediate property of the company's shareholders who should really determine
the fate of the company which they own, not the SIA. When I last checked,
possession and utilization of insider information was still a violation of the
SEC rules. Thank you. John Meserko.
Author: Douglas Meyer at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:21 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
We individual investors need all the available information at the same
time as the analysts. Please create and/or revise laws to accomplish
this. Thank You.
Douglas Meyer 3304 Moon River Street Las Vegas, NV 89129
Author: Raymond Meyers at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:36 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it may concern,
As a long term, buy-and-hold investor, I am primarily using a more
profitable method of saving money with my stock holdings. Freely
distributed information from the companies I invest in or may sometime
to decide to invest in only increases my understanding of those
companies and their markets. Analysts can still be a useful part of
that process. They are not essential to it.
Many investors are professionals or skilled craftsmen, and the
suggestion that we are too emotional or stupid to use unfiltered facts
is insulting.
Please, level the playing field.
Sincerely,
Raymond L. Meyers
Richland, WA
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:33 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
SEC:
As a new retiree, I am now taking a more active role in managing my portfolio
than in the past. The internet provides current, useful information in this
endeavor.
I also make use of the services of a broker and a financial planner. Both
gentlemen offer me perspective on the markets, but I make my own decisions.
I feel ALL information made available to analysts should be available to
individuals like myself. It is important if only to verify the analysts
credibility, and to be aware of all viewpoints on a securities issue.
Over the years I have had several brokers, most very good (fair,
communicative, and sincerely looking after my interests), one very bad (a
stock salesman, churning my account, not paying any respect to my
suggestions). Restricting key information to analysts only encourages
existence of the occasional "bad" broker.
Finally, I think broker fee structures should be changed. Mutual funds
charge a percentage of the account value, and brokers should be doing the
same, rather than a fee on every trade. Fee based transactions create a
support group which encourages trading, even when trading is not in the best
interests of the market, the company or the stockholder.
The internet information base makes the market a radically different entity
than it was even ten years ago. The SEC should support the broadest possible
dissemination of information, and should start looking at a more rational fee
structure for stock trades, consistent with this new paradigm.
Sincerely,
B. R. Migas
Author: "Michael Miles" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:59 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor I strongly support Proposed Regulation FD. It is
time to put an end to the conflict of interest and unfair practices that
plague wall street at the expense of the American public!
Michael S. Miles
Author: "Robert Monk" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
RE: Subject
I believe the public is capable of digesting information released by publicly
owned companys without the assistance of analyst's spin. I would like the
opportunity to sort out the information and make my buying and selling decisions
in the same time frame as the analyst. I do not believe that this will add any
additional volitility to the market. If reductions in volitility is desired,
consider disallowing shorting of stocks and margin purchases. Each of these
practices add artificial downward pressure to the market during would otherwise
be a normal and healthy pull back.
Sincerely,
Robert L. Monk
Author: "Michael Montgomery" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:57 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Thank You
Michael Montgomery
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:31 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
Thank you for contributing to the advancement of a truly free, open and
democratic marketplace by proposing to require Fair Disclosure of
material corporate information.
As an investor who believes that simple fairness can only serve to
strengthen our national and ultimately our global economy, I strongly
support Proposed Regulation FD. You are doing a remarkable job of
proving that government has an essential and irreplaceable role in
assuring that a "free market" can indeed be free, for the only free
market is a morally responsible market.
Thank you for moving the US market in that direction.
Sincerely,
James L. Morris
Owasso, OK
Author: "Walter Nagorski" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of the regulation requiring companies to divulge to
stockholders and the general public, the information they presently disclose
only to select Wall Street analysts. Furthermore, the information should be
made available to all parties simultaneously. It seems a pretty commonsense
rule and I support it in the interest of fair play. I'm actually quite
surprised: I wrongly assumed it was already required by law.
Walter Nagorski
Private Investor
wnagorski@ispchannel.com
Author: "Amy Norcom" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:50 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it May Concern:
I am strongly in favor of the proposed Fair Disclosure Regulation. Here are some
questions raised by Bill Barker of Fool.com in his article of April 20, 2000,
"Wall Street Opposes Level Playing Field," followed by my answers. These
questions have been raised in response to the public comments of April 6, 2000,
by The Ad Hoc Working Group on Proposed Regulation FD and the Legal and
Compliance Division of the Securities Industry Association:
1) Is it true that "it hardly needs saying that analysts perform a necessary and
valuable function in the U.S. capital markets"? Is it true that to perform that
necessary and valuable function they need better information than the
participants in the market?
No, and no. I believe that analysts are out to make money for the brokerages
they work for by encouraging frequent trading, thereby increasing trading
commissions to the brokerage. This practice is unneccessary, quite worthless,
and in fact harmful to individual investors.
2) Is it true that, the "alternative model of millions of individual investors
and potential investors poring over prospectuses and periodic reports is highly
theoretical and out of sync with the real world"?
No. The average person, with just a bit of effort, can learn all that is needed
to manage her own money. With the advent of the internet, the ease with which
individual investors can do this increases by atan order of magnitude.
3) Is it true that analysts make the markets less volatile?
A resounding NO. Quite the contrary. Analysts' absurd rating systems encourage
investors to hop in and out of stocks repeatedly, *increasing* market
volatility.
4) Is it true that analysts spend much of their time ferreting out negative
information about companies?
No. Analysts will say what needs to be said to keep the companies they cover
happy so that they are allowed access to inside info
rmation. They will "shape their opinion to maximize the likelihood of being
included in these closed-door meetings with the company CFO," according to
Michael Lewis, in his book "Liar's Poker."
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my opinion. And thank you for
addressing this remarkably important issue.
Sincerely,
Amy C. Norcom
Salem, Oregon
Author: "Joseph Nunes" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:04 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: at Internet
Subject: New rules on selective disclosure
------------------------------- Message Contents
Officials of the S.E.C.,
I feel highly insulted by the proposal that I should not have full access to the
info on the companies I am investing in, as if I and the investing public in
general, were absolute morons with only knee-jerk reactions, and we were in need
of a pack of analysts to filter and explain that info to us morons, so we will
no hurt ourselves. Please remember that those are the same analysts who were
recommending buying on the eve of the meltdown. They don't work for us
investors, but exclusively for themselves and their profitable careers.
Sorry to disappoint you, but as an adult citizen, I feel perfectly capable of
managing my own money, and need direct access to ALL available information.
Privileging a class of people on the access to information is financially
dangerous, ethically wrong and unjust to the investing public.
I request access to all the same information as the analysts receive. They can
still make a living commenting and explaining all they want, but NOT at the
expense of an uninformed public. Selective disclosure and withholding
information from the public should actually be outlawed and severely penalized.
It is a recipe for fraud and for the exploitation of the investors.
Best regards
Joseph Nunes
Author: "Mel Odom" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It's interesting to me that the financial industry wants to control the flow
of information.
It's evident that in their attempt to control who gets the information
first, that the "analysts" are looking out for their best interest and not
the interest of the general investing public.
While it may be true that an analyst can get closer to the source than the
general investor, it is not true that their presence makes the market less
volatile. In fact analysts are the reason why the volatility is where it
is. When a analyst changes a rating on a particular company it's impact is
immediate in the market place.
By leveling the playing field, the SEC can give the average investor the
opportunity to make his own decisions about a company's spin on financial
news and statements. Giving that power to the general investing public
will not only level the playing field, but lessen the impact that analysts
have on the market place. What I believe the motivation is for the
financial analysts is their livelyhood. They are afraid that their
perceived value will lessen and somehow their usefulness will be diminished.
However the opposite is true. Because the average investor will not be able
to have those special "phone calls" to management, they will continue to
look to financial analysts to provide additional insight into a company's
"statements and press releases". Putting the proposed regulation in
place, builds confidence in the integrity of the financial markets and oddly
enough increases reliance on the expert analysis that the general investor
uses to make investment decisions.
Melkor Odom
Author: Kent Orcutt at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am just as intellegent as any wall street analyst. I believe it would
be unethical to withhold information from me about a company that I was
investing in just to help an analyst keep his job. Anybody who is
investing their own money, should be allowed all knowledge available if
they want it.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:58 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern,
I deserve all the information available to make my investment
decisions. Tell the Wall Street Tycoons not to worry whether or not I know
what to do with that information.
Scott Phy
Author: Donald Pinegar at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 7:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File no. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please let companies disclose information directly to the public. Most
analysts seem to be as dumb as the rest of us mere mortals. It is our money
and if we want to lose it in the stock market making our own decisions, then
so be it. I do not need an analyst to make decisions on who to vote for and
I do not need an analyst to tell me how to invest my money. I seem to have a
better record on picking stocks than most of the talking heads on MSNBC.
Donald Pinegar, President: Industry Design Studio
Author: Roger Placzek at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly oppose the proposed regulation and find it offensive to be cast
as someone not capable of assimilating the information now provided to
the "elite" analysts.
Respectfully,
Roger A. Placzek
Rainbow Logistics, LLC
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0420b06w.htm
