Comments on Proposed Rule:
Selective Disclosure and Insider Trading
Release Nos. 33-7787, 34-42259, IC-24209, File No. S7-31-99
Author: "Bob Authur" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:13 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Gentlemen:
I am strongly in favor of the proposed new SEC rule requiring public
disclosure of investment information by a traded company. The free flow
of information is a cornerstone of the investment markets, as it is in
the political realm, and levels the playing field for all investors.
The position of the Securities Industry Association ("SIA") that they,
along 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 is incorrect. What little information that does come
from analysts to individual investors is usually dated, and filtered by
what analysts think is important and not always what individual
investors think is important.
The proposed SEC rule provides equal access to information.
Robert F. Authur
Sterling, MA
Author: JEFFEREY BLEAM at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:09 AM
Normal
Receipt Requested
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It seems to me that in a society the values freedom of speech and has laws
like the Freedom of Information Act any restriction of information can only
benefit the few who have access to that information. As an investor I do
not want to be spoon fed information from a third party about a company I
may have a vested interest. I am in favor of the passing of Proposed
Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99.
Sincerely,
Jeff Bleam
373 Riverview Dr.
Boulder Creek, CA 95006
jbleam@yahoo.com
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:59 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC
I oppose the financial industry knowing information sooner than I do at
all times. It is not fair and I do all of my own stock picking, research
and I do not believe they should have an edge over me just because I am
an independent small investor. You can always tell when they know
something before the rest of us because the stocks starts running up or
down and the rest of us are forced to catch up or take the hit or enjoy
less of a gain because of them acting on their insider knowledge .
Either way they have preserved or exploited the information they had
first. Wall street does not need to know anything before I do ever.
Thanks,
Steve Brookshire
1727 Wolf River lane NW
Cedar Rapids , Iowa
52405
Author: JCandidi@aol.com at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:17 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Timely Dissemination of Financial Information to the Public
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, I feel compelled to not only request but demand
any and all financial disclosures be forwarded to all related parties at the
same time so as to better inform the investing public about timely
disclosures. No one entity, be it financial analysts or the like, should be
apprised of market sensitive news before any other. By allowing this
dichotomy the SEC is inviting the possibility of price manipulation by those
"in the know" thereby placing the uninformed at undue risk to such schemes
known as the "pump & dump" and "short & distort." We the investing public
have just as much a need to know (be informed) as do the financial analysts
and media. Our investments are equally at stake and should therefore be
regarded equally as important as any other investors concerned, large or
small. While there may be some truth to the fact that smaller investors may
lack formal training in financial analysis, a good many of us take the time
to educate ourselves albeit informally. Websites such as The Motley Fools
bare testimony to that endeavor. Additionally, I find myself subscribing to
an ever larger number of financial publications (Wall Street Journal,
Barrons, ValueLine Investors Survey, Financial Charting) in the attempt to
better educate myself. I am not alone in this process of self taught
financial analysis as can be evidenced by a visit to most stock message
boards. Based on the aforementioned, I respectfully request the SEC to
reconsider its current policy which further fuels the haves vs have nots
access to timely financial disclosures. Perhaps when everyone is on equal
footing volatility may decrease as a result. Your help is needed in order to
balance the playing field; the ball is now in your court. Thank you for your
consideration.
Author: "Cross; Mark" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:16 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
I am an individual investor, and would like to voice my strong support for
the proposed Fair Disclosure of Information by Public Companies Regulation
(Regulation FD). It has been proven throughout history that whenever a
system that favors insiders is made fair, that it is better for society
overall. This is called progress. The only way to prevent Wall Street
analysts who discover information about a public company from giving their
own firms funds and clients first opportunity to take advantage of that
information, is to make that information available to everyone.
Having read the Security Industry Associations (SIA) public comments
regarding Regulation FD. Their argument that information must be filtered
by analysts before being made available to the public is clearly a desperate
attempt to maintain their advantage, and I hope that the SEC can see that.
There are a significant number of individual investor who are more than
qualified to make assessments on information, and probably more accurately
and without bias. Any investor who does not understand information released
by a public company is not likely to act on that information. Therefore,
knowledgeable investors are being kept at an unfair disadvantage for no good
reason, except to allow Wall Street insiders to maintain their unfair
advantage and continue to live in their three million dollar condominiums.
Best Regards
Mark Cross
1508 Wild Cranberry Drive
Crownsville, MD 21032
Author: Greg & Sandy Della-croce at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:32 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Greetings!
It has come to my attention that there is a proposed change in
regulations so that companies are no longer allowed to selectively
disclose information. I would like to support that change. In a Motley
Fool article, Bill Barker quoted some of 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
("SIA").
> 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.
>
To add my two cents worth, 1) analysts used to be the front line and
were the principle source of information. Now with the internet and
other fast information providers, they are not needed as much as they
were. 2) The alternative model in the quote above is not out of sync
with the real world. I am an individual investor, and I do read
prospectuses and do a lot of research myself - I have never used a
broker to recommend a stock, bond, or mutual fund. To allow them, and
other "large" investors exclusive rights to information that I could
also use, and should receive, should not be allowed - it should be
illegal.
Sincerely, Mrs. S. Della-Croce
Author: "Dinkel; Jason" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:59 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am very much for Fair Disclosure. The benefits appear to outweigh the
potential risks in volitility. Furthermore, I do not believe in Wall Street
analysts having information that is not generally available to the public.
Please choose Fair Disclosure.
Thank you,
Jason Dinkel
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:00 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
With regard to Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 :
The practice of allowing brokers to obtain information from companies in advance
of the public
is unethical. It provides a temptation to practice insider trading that is
obviously not resisted.
Seeing a stock's price surge just before critical news becomes available to the
individual investor,
is an everyday occurance. Brokers who cannot establish their 'merit' without
the insider
advantage should try washing dishes or digging ditches as an alternative career
path.
Public forums for sharing information should be established. The trend towards
open to the public
conference calls, and public interviews between analysts and ceos should be
adopted as
the standard. Many individual investors feel that they are in a guessing game
as to when
institutional investors will decide to dump a stock or a market sector; fear
that one will be left holding
the bag when those 'in the know' exit early based on inside information
triggers irrational behavior.
Such a general perception tends to turn corrections into panics. Early and full
disclosure of information
encourages investors to learn financials and evaluate stocks carefully, while
delay of disclosure
leads people to attempt to ride mysterious momentums, to ignore knowledge that
is often received
too late to be of value, and to view the market as a corrupt casino.
Miles Dudley
Author: "Skip Egley (ra7546)" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:21 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think the SIA's filing in regards to this issue reflects their desire
to keep pilfering the investing public. As far as I can tell, they do
not perform any consistent and valuable addition to the securities
industry, and I believe we would be better off without the majority of
them, which this ruling, if passed, would probably end up doing in the
long run.
Hiding information by any individual, allows for manipulation of people
not aware of that information. This is clearly in violation of the
spirit this country was built upon. If we (the people - investing
public) are smart enough (the SIA evidently feels the investing public
is not smart enough to accurately digest this information) to run the
country (we supposedly do run the country via the ballot box), then I
think we're smart enough to digest a prospectus, or any other
information available, if we're so inclined.
Thank you,
James L. Egley
11624 Jollyville Rd #537
Austin, TX 78759
Author: Lee Faw at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:18 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am in favor of adoption of the subject regulation. Open disclosure is
a far superior idea than current procedures. If I need clarification of
something a company says about the financials, I can call my broker.
Please adopt the subject rule.
Lee Faw
Author: "R. Gregorac" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I believe the public has every right to the same information as any other
group, delivered at the same time.
After all, in spite of the professionals on Wall St. claiming otherwise, how
can professional analysts be counted on to give accurate information--how
many outright sells have you seen? Does 'hold' mean 'sell' or 'hold'? The
public can be trusted with any public information. It does not have to be
filtered by any group.
Most of us won't care about specific information and those that do care are
actively following the company giving the news release and will have a
thoughtful way to evaluate the information.
Robert J. Gregorac
1722 Buchanan Dr.
Ames, Ia 50010
Author: =?Windows-1252?Q?Montan=E9_Hamilton?= at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:23 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear SEC,
After reading some of SIA's comment on this proposed rule
change, I have to reply and give my take. As a young investor,
and trading all by myself through low-cost internet broker I'm
one of those who would gain from the influx of information about
stocks. I'm very aware of what analysts do, but to infer that
they should have more information than us is ludicrous. They are
bound to be biased to their company's they work for, and often
make recommendations based on they're holdings not on the facts.
The SIA's statement made reference to analysts making the
markets more stable, and from all I've seen it's the analysts by
their comments that can send the market where they want. All in
all, my opinion is ALL investors should have access to ALL
information as it is our money and a collective pool of millions
is better than a small group of opinions.
Montané Hamilton
www.midwifesearch.com
PO Box 2632
Dillon, CO 80435
www.birthwithlove.com
Need Midwifery Supplies?
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:14 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Reg. FD: File #S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think its about time we, the individual investor, had access to the same
information that Wall Street analysts. The idea that the public isn't smart
enough to decipher what the information is all about is asinine. We CPA's,
Doctors, Managers, Investment Groups, etc., are all "smart" enough to do at
least as well as the supposed gurus. All you have to do is look around and
read how many stocks fall 50%, 60%, 70%, even 90%, while the Wall Street
professionals continue to offer strong buy signals. If you need examples of
these by name, contact me or read some of the financial magazines such as Wort
h, Forbes, Smart Money, etc.. Every month they have winners and losers, that
is, gurus that were right and gurus that were wrong.
Let's level the playing field. We really are not as incompetent as Wall
Street would like you to believe.
Michael J. Hammel
1141 Shorecrest Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
(714) 536-5833
Author: biopsc at Internet
Date: 11/15/1999 10:22 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think analysts to perform their function need inclusive, factual and
non-misleading company and relevant information to form their
conclusions that in fact affect the overall market.
Individuals should also have access to this information. But I do feel
that the problem is that in this society of everyone wants to be a
millionaire, right now and not over a period of time, do-it yourself
mentality, people feel they can cut out the middle man and handle their
investment strategies and research themselves.
People should always have access to information, but does that mean they
should be allowed to practice apply this information without measures of
personal consequence other than losing their money? I say not, if this
was true everyone could be a lawyer without pasing the bar, a doctor
without being board certified, or be president without meeting the
requirements established in the constitution.
This is only my humble opinion.
Nicole Hasson
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:26 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To whom it may concern:
Do the right thing and level the playing field even more. The notion that
public companies can disclose information to a select group on Wall Street
and not the public at large is just plain wrong.
Sincerely Yours,
Karen & Chris Hill
Alexandria, VA
Author: Dan Hogan III at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:12 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 Insider trading by anilists
------------------------------- Message Contents
To the SEC,
I am an individual investor that wants you to pass the open
markets rule. There should be a level playing field and
major analysts should not get information first. By limiting
access to this information I consider they are insider
trading on information that is not generally known to the
public.
Sincerely,
Daniel P. Hogan III
Seattle Wa.
Author: "Mark & Rosemarie Hyde" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:03 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I think it's despicable and demeaning to decide that I or other investors don't
have the intelligence to analyze or understand reports and prospectuses from
companies that are traded on the Stock Market! Analysts don't have any more
intelligence in this area. They are just trying to monopolize information and
secure the future of their jobs. This information should be open to the public.
After all, it's my money I'm investing, and I deserve to have all the
information available to be able to make a sound investment decision on my own.
Sincerely,
Rosemarie Hyde
Author: "Ed. Josephson" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:18 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support the proposed regulation and believe its adoption will
greatly benefit the investing public. The more timely and complete the
information available to the investing public the more informed their
investing decisions will be. This new regulation will also go a long
way toward making the individual investor an informed consumer of market
analyst products. The individual will know the questions to ask and and
better positioned to correctly interpret the information provided by the
analyst. A win all the way around.
Of course, the proposed regulation will also go a long way toward
removing the perception (often correct) that a privileged few have
access to information not available to the public.
Edward H. Josephson
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:57 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I strongly support this proposed regulation. It is about time that Wall
Street recognized that individual investors have a right to know the same
things that are revealed elsewhere.
Matt Kashani
San Diego, California
Author: "JOHN KENDALL" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:17 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I support the proposed regulation whereby information disclosed by companies
to analyst would have to be disclosed to the public.
The perception by the public is that the playing field is not a level one.
The proposed regulation would help to eliminate the perception that an
analyst and their clients are essentially insiders, with the first shot at
making a profit or cutting their losses.
John Kendall
John T. Kendall, CPA
Author: "Lacher; Karl" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:08 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
CC: klacher@usinternet.com at Internet
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am writing to express my extreme disagreement with the filing of the
Securities Industry Association.
I welcome the proposed rule by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
regarding the fair disclosure of information by publicly traded companies to
the public. I think it's about time that companies no longer be permitted to
engage in the practice of discreetly disclosing important information to Wall
Street analysts. This information should be readily available to individual
investors as well.
With the establishment of the internet and online discount brokerages,
individual investors have unprecedented access to information and the
mechanisms for investing in stocks of public corporations. It only seems
fitting that we should have access to the same information as the
specialized Wall Street analysts.
In my opinion, the SIA's filing is a self serving one, designed to protect
their interests at the expense of everyone else. Because the average
analyst's performance is so poor when it comes to picking stocks, they must
feel that they need an added advantage.
Sincerely,
Karl P. Lacher
Author: Dave Latini at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:02 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
To Whom It May Concern:
I have just read the SIA's response to this proposal, and I find it outrageous.
I could do pages and paragraphs on the reasons why, but to say that certain
analysts should have access to negative (or positive!) information prior to
other shareholders (like me) is to create the same kind of unlevel playing field
which has destroyed investor confidence in foreign markets such as Japan and
elsewhere.
My money is the same as anybody else's money. In a democratic country, with
supposed equality of position, investment and otherwise, to release relevant
investing information to the privileged few is absolutely unacceptable. The idea
that only an analyst asking questions in private can ferret out information from
corporate executives *who are, by definition, required to serve the public
investor while pursuing their private corporate agenda* is, on its face, absurd.
I am forwarding a copy of this message to my Congressman as well as to you. I
would hope that common sense on your part would preclude the need for political
intervention to insure fair and equal treatment for all investors.
Sincerely,
David J. Latini
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:09 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: FILE No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please include my support for the proposed regulation. In todays environment
the average investor is many times more knowledgable then in the past. I
beleive the volitility you see today comes from the insider information
leaked at the right times for the companies desired result. thank you fred
lory individual investor....
Author: Ruthie Martin at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:54 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
That the public receives company news and information after the analysts
should be inconceivable to a free, thinking American. Changing the
present system is long overdue. Please add another vote for leveling the
playing field so that the average American is not in "the back of the
bus," financially speaking.
Thank you,
Ruthie Martin
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:29 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: File S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have just completed a review of the public comment offered by the lobby
group for Investment analysts. WHAT A BUNCH OF HOOEY. Only a group that had
as low an opinion of the investing public as they seem to would believe that
their comments could be accepted as valuable.
These same "Investment Analysts" are the ones who will derate a stock growing
at a 50% rate because one quarter ( in a clearly historically cyclical
industry) falls 1%-2% below the previous quarter. I for one aplaud them
because the "average" investor can take their amatuerish attempts at analysis
and convert them into profit. On the other hand to deny me access to the same
information as they, is already leveling the trading field -- only because I
do not have access to all the information are we even close in our ability to
assess the market.
Please remove the barriers to free information and let the "Caveat Emptor"
motto be the govering rule of the day.
Gregory McClain
Casa Grande, AZ
Author: "R. McCleary" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:28 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I wish to support the proposal to require fair and public disclosure of
information by publicly traded companies. I take umbrage at the self-serving
arguments by organizations such as Securities Industry Association that suggest
that individual investors such as myself are insufficiently clever to analyze
such data. Based on such information as I have managed to glean from various
sources, my own investment results considerably surpass those that I had been
able to achieve with the "help" of the self-appointed official, expert analysts.
Please act to support public release of information.
R. McCleary
mccleary@netacc.net
Author: "Jim McSweyn" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:24 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD; File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
To allow analysts special access to information on publicly traded companies is
unfair to all investors. History has proven that professional analysts have done
little with this advantage. I believe it hurts their clients and other investors
by not allowing each and every investor to plot his own course with all the same
information that all others have access to. No individual or company should have
an advantage to obtain information over any other individual or entity.
Sincerely,
Jim Mcsweyn
Billings, MT
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:07 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
The public has a need, and a right, to be treated equally with institutional
buyers and their "analysts". If the public knew that this regulation was
needed there would be an loud roar saying pass it. The only opposition to
this regulation are paid lobbyists representing the institutions.
Thanks You
Author: "Albert Owen" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:01 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: proposed Regulation FD; File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I cast my vote for allowing the public access to ALL corporate that is released.
We are not quite as dumb as the lobbyists would have you believe. All we lack is
information.
Albert Owen
Author: "Wilfred Painter Jr" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:11 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I am aghast that there is any opposition to a rule change that levels the
playing field for the individual investor. For too long, the market has been
controlled by the analysts who serve insitutional interests and their clients,
AT THE EXPENSE OF, other investors. Rather than reducing market volatility,
these broker controlled lockouts of information have decreased the availability
of relevant information to the investing public, and made it more difficult to
fairly analyze a company's growth prospects.
I ask you to support any changes that will further increase the availability of
company information to ALL investors.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:20 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I wanted to let you know, I do not agree with the latest SIA filing and would
like to have my vote count regarding this decision. I believe the individual
investors has every right to the information given by these public companies
and 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.
We are not idiots and can make our own conclusions and do our own research. I
do it all ready nor do I rely on analysts to tell me what to buy or sell. It
would help level the playing field for everyone.
Sincerely,
Gayle Powell
Author: Ralph and Barbara Proud at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:26 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File number S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I favor the free availability of information. To allow a restricted few
individuals to have access to information which they then have the
possibility to use to their advantage and potential detriment of others
is not consistent with the foundations of the Representative Government
of the United States.
Respectfully,
Ralph A. Proud, Jr.
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:24 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
Please see to it that ALL information is public not private.
Analysts with superior information do not add to a level playing field. Even
if they continue to have discussions and ask questions we need to have an
"Open Meetings" type law so all the information is available toall
participatents.
Robert Pyrce
8464 buckingham
Willow Spgs. IL 60480
Author: Mary or David Ruttner at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 9:11 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
It is ridiculous today for the general investor community to not have access
to the same company information that analysts do.
Many investors are going to make their own decisions. To force them to do so
without all the relevant information available is to invite more wild market
fluctuations.
If analysts are any good, people will learn which ones they are and then pay
attention anyway.
Information must be disseminated as widely as possible.
Author: Sawyer Douglas M SSPA at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:12 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject:
------------------------------- Message Contents
Dear Sirs:
I fully support the changes to proposed regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99 as
a private investor and consider selective/limited disclosures to be amoung
other things hypocracy and the argument against full disclosure "elitism"
and protection of the Insiders "rice bowl".
Doug Sawyer
sawyerdm@hotmail.com
Author: "Jay M. Smith" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:17 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD -- File #S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I applaud the SEC for considering this Fair Disclosure Regulation and urge
its adoption. If the ideal of a competitive marketplace is to be
approximated, information needs to be disseminated broadly, not to a select
few.
Sincerely yours,
Jay Smith
Author: "Terry; Larry" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 10:03 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I have read the comments of Lee Spencer, The Ad Hoc Working Group on
Proposed Regulation FD and George A. Schieren, Vice President-Legal, SIA
Compliance and Legal Division, Securities Industry Association, April 6,
2000. Many of the comments contain statements as if they were fact when in
fact they are subject to question. I have listed a few.
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?
I believe the analysts community have so many conflicts of interest that
they do not (and can not) provide objective analysis of the companies the
follow. Therefore, it would serve the public better if the information
playing field were levelled by enacting the proposed rule.
Thank you.
Larry L. Terry
3614 East 49th Street
Tulsa, OK 74135
918-573-0995
Author: at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 11:05 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
As an individual investor, I strongly feel that the public should be given
the same information that public company's give to securities analysts. This
should be required to be released to both at the same time. Analysts can
still release their opinions and analysis of this information, however, there
is no justifiable reason to with-hold this information from the public so
that we may form our own opinions.
In fact, I already thought that public companies were required to do this.
Sincerely,
Mary A. Thomas
Individual investor
Author: "Scott Turner" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:01 AM
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 support the passage of Regulation FD. I cannot see any downside to
making company financial information equally available to all
investors.
-- Scott Turner
Author: "Bob Walden" at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 7:56 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: Proposed Regulation FD: No. S7-31-99
------------------------------- Message Contents
I most assuredly support this proposal. The advent of the computer and the
internet has done for the consumer what the printing press and Martin Luther did
for Christians, namely take the hierarchy out of the "system". Just as they
(computers/internet)have redefined, and in many cases eliminated, the role of
the "travel agent", and the tax preparer, they have done the same for the role
of the "stockbroker".
The analyst is as much at fault as anyone for creating volatility in the market
by virtue of his/her public pronouncement or opinion.
Denying the public full disclosure is denying the concept of free and open
market. Is this what you're about?
Pass the regulation, please.
Bob Walden
Author: Chris Wiedeman at Internet
Date: 04/21/2000 8:21 AM
Normal
TO: RULE-COMMENTS at 03SEC
Subject: "Proposed Regulation FD: File No. S7-31-99"
------------------------------- Message Contents
I'm not intellegent enough to read companies finacial
reports? What have I been doing on the investor
relations pages of the companies I own?
If analists are so good at fereting out information on
companies why do stock prices change with such
frequency? It is my opinion that there is no good
reason to give information to anyone outside a company
before any other person or group.
We have laws that people in a company may not use
information to make trades before the public get the
same information, so the same should go for analists.
I want the same opportunity to "reap the reputational
and financial rewards" that they have. And since this
is a free country I should have those rights.
Fair disclosure of information by publicly traded
companies to the public should have been enacted long
ago. I support this rule and urge you to pass it.
Chirstopher Wiedeman, I.I.I. (Intelegent Individual
Invester)
wied73@yahoo.com
=====
Chris Wiedeman
http://www.sec.gov/rules/0421b04.htm
