Author: Camille Potts at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:43 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, I am in favor of the above-referenced
regulation. The current rules which permit private communication between
analyst and publicly traded company protects the financial interests of
the analyst's employers. Witness the recent sell off, bear market,
correction--call it what you will--in April. Analysts buy and sell for
their companies and their clients before publishing their analysis.
That, as far as I can tell, is trading on inside information and should
not be permitted by the SEC.
Camille Potts
Author: "Len Puchalla" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
The SIA would have us continue receive our information through the filter of
various brokerage analysts. This of course is not insider trading but it is
insider information
trading. The analyst may pass on whatever information they do not consider
prejudicial to their fiscal interests.
Let us have sunshine on the subject.
Leonard A. Puchalla (LenP@Oceana.net)
Shelby Michigan
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:23 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: (no subject)
------------------------------- Message Contents
I want to know all I can about a stock before I spend my money. I don't need
anyone telling me the score, cause they are usually wrong. The analysts are
usually following the crowd, the in crowd.
John S Ragin
5708 Briarcliff Rd.
La, Ca 90068
Treex4665@AOL.com
Author: "Ramamirtham" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:10 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think Proposed Regulation FD should be passed. As an individual investor
who does not use a full service broker not having this regulation puts me at
a disadvantage in that the clients of the full service brokers are the first
to hear about and react to new company information.
Prem Ramamirtham
(pkramamirtham@yahoo.com)
Author: Margaret Rands 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
Dear SEC -
As an individual investor, I welcomed the news that the Securities and
Exchange Commission is considering new rules to combat selective disclosure
of information by public companies. It is a problem for investors like me
when important information relevant to my investments is disclosed to only a
few favored analysts. In order to make my best decisions, I need good and
up-to-date information.
The proposal would be fair to individual investors because it would allow
interested investors like me to gather and analyze relevant information for
ourselves. In choosing my investments and pursuing my investment strategy,
I rely on the best information I can obtain. I find that interpretations of
information by some analysts are often misleading, more intended to help
themselves than to help me.
I, along with many other investors, believe that the current system is not
only bad for individual investors, it is bad for the markets as a whole.
When a company is able to selectively disclose important information to some
sources in exchange for good coverage, it makes a mockery of the free flow
of ideas and information that we rely on.
Please proceed with this proposed rule!
Sincerely,
Margaret J. Rands
4119 San Ramon Way
San Jose, CA. 95111
Author: sdraney at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:24 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the passage of this regulation.
I strongly disagree with the April 6, 2000
statement by the Securities Industry Association.
In essence, they argue that I am not in a position
to make my own decisions about the value of securities.
Being the main lobbiest for full-service brokerages,
they obviously would like to continue with the status-quo
of continuing unequal access to the markets. They
would obviously like to have myself and individual
investors dependent upon full-service brokerages for
access to the markets.
This regulation is a step in the right direction.
Sincerely,
Steven D. Raney
Author: "peter resta" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:25 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: p516@yahoo.com at Internet
Subject: File No. S7-37-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Hello:
Rule Regulation FD File No. S7-31-99 if enacted would not diminished any efforts
or work by the so-called professionals to protect (I can't but laugh at their
arrogance) the individual investor. It will, if enacted, will present the
educated, interested individual investor to the tools of the club, that also has
a twenty-minute advantage on the state of the prices of individual shares ...
how could they possibly lose?
These accesses gives them unfair advantage over the individual investors and
respectability in their nefarious and a wink, wink acceptability to cheating
similar trades of illegal insider trading.
Sincerely,
Peter Resta
8906 Romayne Lane
Austin, Texas 78748-6487
512 280 8048
peteresta@hotmail.com
Author: "Frank Rinaldi" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:37 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
Hi, my name is Frank Rinaldi and I am an active researcher and much less
active investor in the stock market, in particular the U.S. markets. It has
come to my attention that there is a new rule in consideration by the SEC
which, among other things, will make it a rule "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."
I have read the take on this new ruling by The Ad Hoc Working Group on
Proposed Regulation FD and the Legal and Compliance Division of the
Securities Industry Association (SIA), which I have been led to understand
is the primary lobbying group for many full-service brokers. Among their
contentions is:
1. That disclosing all information to the public may make analysts less
effective at their jobs of accurately and fairly evaluating a company.
2. That this inefficiency will leave the public less informed than it was
because...
3. ... the majority of the public does not and will not take the time to
look over prospectuses/company SEC filings, and in general depends on the
media and analysts for its information on companies.
Before I go on I would like to note that I am only familiar with the section
of the rule that would allow full disclosure to the public of information
that was previously only privy to analysts and their ilk. What consequence
the rest of the rule is I am not sure. However, I think that this rule
would be in the best interest of the public. To prove this, I would like to
address the previous assertions by the SIA.
Beginning with one, I want point out that it assumes that analysts
accurately evaluate companies in the first place and that it also assumes
that they are of the utmost importance due to points two and three. As to
the question of their accuracy and fairness, it would be wise to note that
many analysts are inherently biased due to their ties to brokerage houses
and the houses corresponding large holdings of stock. There have been many
substantiated reports of raised "buy" ratings given by analysts after a
stock that their brokerage house touts or has large holding in goes
significantly down. This would seem like a wise decision by the analyst
given the house's previous stance on the stock, except that in some cases
analysts of competing houses which don't hold significant positions in the
stock have much lower recommendations. This leads myself and others to
believe that these analysts are acting to protect their company's interests
over investors. This is one examples of how analysts can be biased. It
does not take much though to come up with more, and is why I contend that
analysts do not always make fair and accurate analysis of companies.
In light of this assertion, I think that any inefficiency caused by public
disclosure of previously privy information will leave the public no less
uninformed, or perhaps misinformed, than it has been due to the potential
for bias in brokerage analysts reports. This leads to point three.
Despite my decent with the SIA on points one and two, I do agree that the
majority of the public does depend mainly on analysts and the media to make
its stock decisions. I think in the past it has been unrealistic to expect
much of the public to do serious stock research on their own, especially
since our education system has done such a poor job of teaching American's
the basics of investing and personal finance. I believe the public remains
dependent on analysts and the media because they have not been shown how
easy and important it is to educate themselves about investing/personal
finance. I also believe this dependency exists and is perpetuated because it
has been in the best interests of brokerage houses to convince the public to
use broker information and let brokers due the investing as apposed to
having the public find other channels for this information and learn how to
invest on their own.
But this does not have to be the case. The Internet has allowed many public
forums dedicated to stock research and investment education to spring up
where there once were few to none. I myself am an avid member of the Motley
Fool (Fool On!), and have also used Yahoo, Money.com, and other sources to
educate myself on investing and personal finance. Most of the basic, and yet
most important, information was learned in a couple of hours. Further
delving into the Internet have led me to stock research clubs and bulletin
boards which present analysis of companies as good if not better than what
analysts put out themselves. It is also of note that the collaboration of
large amounts of people in making informed investment decisions lessons the
chance of bias. I think this shows that the public does not have to rely on
the media and more importantly analysts for all of its information. Indeed,
I think it is important in light of my belief that brokerage analysts can be
inherently biased that the public find other sources for investment
information.
Therefore, I am in favor of public disclosure of previously privy
information. Even if this were to lessen the effectiveness of analysts, it
allows the public to be as knowledgeable on companies as any analyst, and
shows that analysts hold no special cards. I believe this would empower more
of the public to become more knowledgeable on personal finance and investing
as apposed to leaving it up to the "experts." It would also force analysts
to compete more with each other, which would hopefully lead to better, less
biased analyses in order to gain stature and retain credibility among an
equally informed public.
Thank you for you time,
Signed: Frank Robert Rinaldi
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
The proliferation of information technology is overwhelming, to the best
of the computer guru's. Indeed, it seems daily, our paradigms of how we gain
knowledge is changing rapidly, and in retrospect, at a much faster, and
appreciable rate.
Please consider changing your minds in requiring companies to disclose
information regarded at this time only privy to the analysts. Time after
time, the management of some of the largest corporations, namely Waste
Management, may have been thwarted prior to the decrease in the stock price
by 75% in July 1999.
This lack of information to the small investor, and quite possibly the
employees' heavily financed in their IRA would have been approached
differently by the current and past employees. I honestly do not see any
value in withholding information that can be interpreted by the "average"
investor versus the "Financial Analyst community." This process, I believe,
will further erode the confidence of the small investor in themselves on
making decisions.
Please consider Mr. Greenspan's non-comments on the markets, he is taking no
responsibility of how the market values the current equity's, and in effect
stated recently that, to paraphrase "A Balance sheet that was over a month
old, could be considered inaccurate in today's information driven Financial
society"
Don't misunderstand me, the lives of many people are changing, and they
continue even more with technology increasing our productivity, however, as
humans we all haven't decided to just go to the beach. Besides the obvious
skin cancer warnings, we continue to change and try to become productive in
other ways..... (I wish I had more time for the beach) LOL.
Thanks for hearing me out, I believe that Honesty is the best policy. And
lets not loose the American Beauty of our wealth, the confidence of the
individual to survive in this capitalistic society.
Sincerely,
Steve Robinson
732 North Detroit Street
Los Angeles, CA 90046-7606
Author: "TKRogge" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:31 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As as individual investor, I find it ludicrist that some have found it prudent
(ie. the SIA), to ascert that they should have the opportunity to hear news
first hand, take action on the news before me, then argue that it's all in "my"
best interest. I can't count how many times I've experienced and heard of a
sudden drop in a stock price, only to find out that "The Street" new of upcoming
bad news long before I (we) did. How is it in my own best interest that I can't
trade on the same news that those with enough money to tank my investment do?
In short, all absurdity aside, I'm in favor of Proposed Regulation FD: File No.
S7-31-99. Anything else is like having an auction where only a select group are
aware of the quality of the goods being sold, while the rest have to wait until
after they've already bought the goods to find out the same.
Please PASS Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
thanks so much for your time ...
Ken Rogge
Author: David at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 12:20 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No.s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is , contrary to the writings of the Wall Street Analysts, in the
individual investors best interest to learn the power behind the
creation of weath embodied in the stock market. This country, having
been founded on democracy has within capitolism a method to truly
provide the possibility of weath for all americans. The stock market and
knowledge of its workings is critical to allowing americans to partake
in the bounty of equity being generated during these prosperous times.
Even in slower periods of growth, this knowledge would be instrumental
in allowing investors to track corporations by analysing the quality of
stocks in the position that is held.( Rather than guessing on a rise in
their holdings at any particular instant, essentialy what is done with
short term trading and what amounts to gambling.) The merit of strong
and healthy companies lies in continued investor rewards through long
term ownership of a corporation rather than short term trading. ( which
primarily benefits Wall Street and the analysts by ensuring continued
revenue for them from commisions and turnover in portfolio's)
An increase in volatility is only relative to the particular research
being performed by the investors and the methods used to employ the
securities transactions. For example, A short term investor will frown
on volatility because the ability to guage trends toward steady growth
lesten as the security modulates around a moving average. This makes the
odds of winning the short 'gambling game' worse than in less volatile
markets. On the one hand, high volatility being a short term phenomena
( within the space of hours to days ) is bad for Wall Street because it
makes fund managers jobs more of the "pick the rabbit out of the hat "
game that their jobs already are. Also, by reducing the ability to
predict steady growth over daily cycles, the managers returns are
reduced due to their inability to gauge a more choatic market from the
previously less choatic situation. (Being prior to the time that
investors began to act on their own information and research.) The flip
side of this "bad news for Wall Street" is that fostering trading over
long terms toward the purpose of buying businesses that are strong,
ensures steady growth through detailed research one security at a time.
Without the steady churn of money market, mutual and so called "growth
funds" there is also a lack of the steady commmisions costs incurred by
trading privately held portfolios. In fact when employed diligantly,
this method yields greater returns over a longer period of time than
could ever be achieved by shorting over the same period of time.
As for the normal man being unable to comprehend the market there is
only one thing to say, nonsense. The principles of "buying businesses"
is readily understood and quickly implemented, over the long term,
marginally detailed analysis of securities over a quarterly or even
yearly basis ( Quarterly is best due to the release of actual corporate
earnings reports) tracks the true value of a stock , rather than the
woefully inaccurate daily valuation. This allows the investor to see the
obviousness of the weath making machinary of healthy companies and the
loss making machinary of failing companies.
To address the statement: " analysts perform a necessary and valuable
function in the U.S. capital markets" The only function performed is the
maintenance of a buffer between the actual valuation placed on stocks
and the truer valuation based on balance sheets. This has the effect of
blinding the investor from focusing on the health metrics of one
business at a time and guaging investement decisions on the output of
this research. True, in the short term volatility will increase, but the
over all accuracy of the free market mechanism will increase because
individuals will be capable of making less guesses over which securites
are valuable and which are bound to fail.
In conclusion, the Internet is providing the catalyst for the
transition. Markets are becoming increasiningly volatile, and WILL
CONTINUE TO DUE SO, with the expansion of the internet and the free
availability of the news that "anyone can invest". The internet will
provide the machinery for real time or near real time representation of
corporate valuations, this in turn will drive up volatility in the short
term and thus naturally bring difficulties for Wall Street. Even if the
decision on this Regulation is favorable to Wall Street, the increased
volatility will make short trading a fools game.
David Saintloth
TheStreet.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:56 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlepersons:
I support the adoption of this rule (Proposed Regulation FD) which would
require 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. This proposed rule makes perfect
sense to me. Why shouldn't each citizen have access to the same information
as a group of insiders?
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Paul Sanders
Owner: Paul Sanders Photography
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed Regulation FD: file No.S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Fair disclosure to the public of company information is necessary and fair. I
fully support the proposed rule change. Please do the right thing and approve
this rule change.
James Schneider
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:08 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
Since when have analyists provided necessary and valuable information ?
And since when have analyists spent much time ferreting out negative
information about companies ? With all this ferreting out of negative
information, how often do analyists give a company a sell rating ?
The time for full disclosure is long overdue.
KShimada@aol.com
Author: "Ron Sims" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:31 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of th new regulation.
Author: Frank Springer 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
I support the proposed rule as I am feed up with hearing information
that has been filtered through so called Wall Street analyst. People
are not dumb. They can see how information is used to influence the
stock market. Knowlwdge is power and as an individual investor, I want
to share that power equally.
Francis J. Springer
2711 Cedar Knob Road
Harker Heights, TX 76548
Author: 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
To whom it may concern,
I am strongly in favor of rule changes requiring public companies to
release all information to the public at large, not just to any select group
of analysts.The public as stockholders or potential stockholders deserve the
information to make their own decesions, not a dependency on special interest
groups of analysts to interpret information for them while they profit from
protected insider knowledge.
Thank You
Tim Stahl
INVESTOR
Author: Richard Strong at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:13 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I can't believe that you truly believe that companies should engage in
the practice of discreetly disclosing important information to Wall
Street analysts without also giving that information to the public at
large. I can't believe that you believe that it is in our best interest
to keep we uneducated and emotional basket cases in the dumb and dumber
categories.
The only ones who would really believe this are the ones that would be
in a position to benefit from this information not getting out. I
already feel that analysts have themselves and their clients as
motivating factors relative to disseminating information. If you do not
pass this regulation, then I will know not to trust them.
There is a reason they call the individual investors "week hands". It
is because we are so carefully protected from the very information that
could make us "smart".
PLEASE!
PASS THIS PROPOSED REGULATION!!!
Richard Strong
Indianapolis, IN
strongra2@home.com
Author: David Stronsky at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:04 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Sirs,
It is ridiculous to think that analysts are entitled to more information
about stocks than the individual investor, particularly in these times
of on-line trading where the individual investor does his own research.
There is no proof the analysts know what to do with their more extensive
access to information than a monkey. Allow everyone to pour over
relevant info or you are contributing to a brand of insider trading.
Dave Stronsky
Author: "Shawn Stufflebeam" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:05 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
My name is Shawn C. Stufflebeam, and I am an American citizen by birth.
Perhaps in the past, when most people were not taking control of their own
finances, in our nation's childhood, it's citizens needed to be protected
from themselves. This is no longer the case.
The SEC takes such great pains to ensure that insider trading does not
occur; leveling the playing field seems like a natural step in this
direction. Monopolies are historically bad for the economy in a capitalist
society; a monopoly on information can not be good for a securities market
in a capitalist society.
Sincerely,
Shawn C. Stufflebeam
5540 Roswell Road #G-213
Atlanta, GA 30342
(404)459-0609
Author: Heriberto Suarez Cruz 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
My only comment is that if I'm old enough to go to war and kill people,
I'm old enough to decide how to interpreted the financial information.
I don't need any big brother to say what is good for me.
Cordially,
Heriberto Suarez
Author: "Pat Supanich" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:29 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
"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"
Its always suprising to you to know when your getting "legally" robbed. You
assume that there is protection from anything unjust but every once in a while
there it is, plain and simple. The more I've learned and been involved in the
financial world the more I've seen the manipulation that goes on everyday. The
individual investor is at a disadvantage when he or she is not on a level
playing field. This excerpt says it all:
"Due to fierce competition among analysts to obtain the best information, they
will be reluctant to ask questions in an open session that tip off their
competitors as to the direction of their thinking or information that they
think would be meaningful."
I you do not recognize this it is the Securities Industry Association's filing
with the SEC. They are basically admitting that this "private" information
gives them an advantage which it obviously does. We're all traders whether its
one individual or a whole firm we are considered their competitors. More
information can only help the individual investor. Its a law of economics, the
more information the more efficiency. It would be extremely interesting to know
how often the people with the "preferred information" time the market just
perfectly and get out just before the downgrade. Please perform your duty to
protect the public at large and pass the Proposed Regulation FD.
Thank You,
Patrick Supanich
Author: "N. Tadikonda" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:19 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
We definitely need a level playing ground by eliminating selective
disclosure
N. Rao Tadikonda
6 Lynnfield Drive
Morristown, NJ 07960
Author: pilgrim at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:59 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation FD: File No. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
I can hardly believe the unbridled arrogance of the securities industry
and its opposition to full, open, and simultaneous release of
information. Please count this taxpayer in full support of the new
open-disclosure regulation.
Lee Templeton
825 Morewood Avenue
Pittsburgh, PA 15213
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:53 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think it is highly unethical to allow company officials to brief only
"select" individuals on the companies performance. All comments should be
publically available without the interfering filter of an analysts
speculation. Why can I not make up my own mind. Its my money.
Thanks,
Skyler
Skyler Thomas
Senior Consultant
IBM WebSphere Services Group
E-mail: tskyler@us.ibm.com
Phone: 919-543-8003 (T/L 441-8003)
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:12 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Access to Information
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom it May Concern:
I am an investor in securities with a fairly large portfolio. In my opinion I
am the best judge of how my money should be invested. It is in my best
interests to have the most complete information regarding prospective
investments UNFILTERED THROUGH SUPPOSED EXPERTS. After all the ultimate
responsibility for the success or failure of these is mine and mine alone.
Hopefully you will agree that this responsibility can only be met with the
best and MOST COMPLETE INFORMATION possible.
Thank you for your consideration.
Barry D. Trabitz, D.M.D.
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
Dear Sir :
After reviewing the proposed regulation, I wish to inform you that I am
overwhelmingly in favor of it. There are no situations, that I am aware of,
where less information is preferable to full disclosure.
Sincerely,
Stephen Tuley
3008 Shelley Lynn Drive
Arnold, Missouri 63010-3866
636-282-7218
pvttubem@aol.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:59 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD, File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I favor full disclosure.
Ronald E. Utecht
Texas Lutheran University
Author: "D.R. Veazey" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:31 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am very much in favor of the proposed new rule. Leveling the playing field
will provide me with valuable information currently available only to Wall
Street types. Freeing me from the grasp of these "few" insiders will make me a
more prudent and wiser investor without the need to incur the additional cost.
Thank you,
Don R Veazey
Las Cruces, NM
Author: "Robert Walden" 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
individual investors should have equal access to information currently only
available to professional securities analysts, at the same time those
analysts come into possession of the information.
having securities analysts presume to protect me from my financial self is
no less obtuse than hoping the federal government will take over supervision
of my personal life in order to save me from myself.
robert w. walden (a fool on the hill)
Author: "Steven Walker" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 9:38 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The public is entitled to equal access to the information provided by publicly
traded companies. There is no valid reason for giving Wall Street analysts what
amounts to "insider" information.
Steven R. Walker
Author: Dick Walker 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
It is time for the closed door to be opened. In an above-board market,
any investor should have equal opportunity access to
information released by companies that pertains in any way to the value
of investments. I can analyze information for myself.
The day of the old-boys club is over.
Dick Walker
Austin, Texas
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: LEVEL PLAYING FIELD.
------------------------------- Message Contents
Since I have already expressed my feeling to Mr. Levitt, I sort of feel that
it is
useless to keep beating a dying horse. So I give the analogy of a friend of
mine.
" If you took all the money in the world and divided it up equally to all the
human
beings in the world;...The people who have the money NOW, would have it all
back in about (6)-months. THERE IS NEVER GOING TO BE A LEVEL-PLAYING
FIELD. For it would just give MORE people the opportunity to learn how to
play
the GAME of BIG-FINANCE. Once you get more players, it should STIMULATE
ALL ECONOMIES, the WORLD over. However, the little PEOPLE, who think they
are really a PLAYER, would not have any advantage, and would have to look for
REAL-WORK, or START EARNING THEIR MONEY, instead of basking in the
failure of someone else's funds, they have so BRAZENLY put into some STOCK
that is promoted by their EMPLOYER. iT IS TIME THAT ALL THE HOLLYWOOD
WANNABES, got real jobs, and EARNED the money they spend so freely....just
because, it is money that can be repeated tomorrow.
I am also tired of hearing that this would cause un-due un-employment and
might
upset things nationwide. BULL-SH_T! Do it. It is time we started making
things
right, and go on with growing, and enlarging our knowledge, than KEEPING the
Status-Quo...HAPPY
A probably poor analogy, but one that I need to express, is sending my Income-
tax...CERTIFIED mail to my CPA. It took 9-DAYS to go 200-miles. I could
have
walked the distance in that time. 30 years ago...it was mentioned that the
Post
Office should be made a PUBLIC-enity, and ran like a business. HOORAY! for
that concept. Too bad, it was never followed up on, because of all the PORk-
BELLY, keeping all the WELFARE WORKERS, working.
Oh well; I am now getting off on tangients, that don't apply to the matter at
hand.
Which is....CHANGE the way things are handled on WALL-STREET. TRUTH! is
the underlying base, to which we all should adhere to. Unfortunately, this
will
eliminate, all the GLITTER and FANFARE of the Infamous STREET.
Respectfully;
Michael Walters / St. Louis,Missouri
Author: Gregg Wells at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:26 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Fair disclosure is urgently needed for all investors. Accurate
information that is simultaneously available to everyone in the
marketplace will enable every investor to understand the past and present
condition of public companies and to evaluate for himself their potential
future condition. The real danger lies in selective release of
information, a situation in which a select group can manipulate market
conditions to their advantage and to the disadvantage of others.
Individual investors in the United States have shown substantial
sophistication in their use of information about the performance of
companies, when this information has been available. The SEC and the
public does not need to fear the truth about the performance and outlook
of any company. The proposal states, "By enhancing investor confidence
in the markets, we believe the proposed Regulation will encourage
continued widespread investor participation in our markets, which will
enhance market efficiency and liquidity, and foster more effective
capital raising." I agree wholeheartedly.
Let information flow freely! The only valid fear is held by the
securities industry as it fears a loss of control over market activity
and fears the loss of a stream of profits into its pocket.
An individual investor,
Gregg B. Wells
1209 Walton Drive
College Station, TX 77840
Author: "john wells" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:14 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed regulation fd: file no. s7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
dear government ???,
Your thought to continue the existing regulation stinks. Most analysts are mere
cheer leaders for their individual employers thoughts and wishes, who, in turn
are in bed with many of the companies they seek to analyze.
Poor regulation and poor analysis on your part for letting it continue for so
long.
john wells
Author: "Bruce Wentworth" at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:00 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I have read the fact sheet entitled "Selective Disclosure and Insider
Trading Rule Proposals" (located at web site
http://www.sec.gov/news/extra/sdiscfaq.htm). As an individual investor, I
manage my retirement IRA on my own, purchasing individual stocks on the
basis of publicly available news sources (television, newspaper, and
internet web sites).
It offends me that some of the companies whose stock I own selectively
disclose information to Wall Street analysts while I only find out about it
later. I support wholeheartedly the proposed rules.
Sincerely,
Bruce Wentworth
bruce@wenthome.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:17 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Public information
------------------------------- Message Contents
The public has a right to know all information that is available to analysts
regarding stocks and bonds. Many years ago when I took it upon myself to
educate myself about investing I started making money in contrast to the
years during which I took the advice of brokers, several of whom sold me
obviously bad investments. Later, when I retired from a career as an
educational administrator I became a stock broker, only to find that my firm
insisted that I look out for its bottom line rather than the best interests
of my clients. I listen to analysts who have proven themselves, but they
have no more right than I do to receive information.
Sincerely yours,
Gretchen G. Wheelwright, Ph.D.
Author: Dean Wick at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:07 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Propsed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I do not support that securities analysts should be entitled to
'private" information on companies I own or wish to own (or wish to
disown). Since they are professionals, I expect their expeience can
still be useful to guide individual investors even when that information
is publicly available.
Dean Wick
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 11:35 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC: Analysts do NOT need or deserve advance notice of company
information. Giving them that head start almost smacks of insider trading.
Let's level the playing field and require full disclosure.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 10:09 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The public is entitled to the same information as market analysts and many can
interpret company reports as well. There are millions of us out here who do
our own investing and do very well at it but are at a disadvantage since we do
not have access to the same information at the same time as the brokers. Do
not believe that the general public is stupid when it comes to reading and
understanding large company reports or other data released periodically only
to the large brokerage houses. We demand the same information at the same
time.
Harold H. Wilkins
Frankfort, Ky
Author: CLAYBAUGH@webtv.net (JANE/BILL CLAYBAUGH) at Internet
Date: 04/20/2000 8:49 PM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD File No. 57-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe that all information that a company wishes to release, should
be released to all sources at the same time, not just to Wall Street
analyst. i am a retired stock broker and have always felt the current
system unfair to the public. no one should assume that just because a
person might not have full comprehension of a news release, that they
are not entitled to receive it at the same time as everyone else. they
can call their broker or financial advisor for further info. thank you
for possibly trying to even the playing field. william claybaugh
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0420b07w.htm
